
    No. 10,535.
    P. L. Buras et al. vs. William J. O’Brien.
    Plaintiffs in this petitory action must depend on the strength of their own title. They have established no title, either by conveyance, or by accession, or by prescription.
    APPEAL from the Twenty-Fourth District Court, Parish of Plaque-mines. Idvaudais, J.
    
    E. Howard McCaleb for Plaintiffs and Appellants:
    Tn 1841 plaintiffs’ predecessor obtained patents from the United States for a narrow strip of land, situated on the west bank of the Mississippi river, at the Jump, in the parish of Plaquemines, known as sections 7 and 8, in township 21, bounded by the Mississippi river in front and West Bay in the rear. The deposits and overflows of the river have filled up this bay, made of it high land and united it to the main land in front.
    1. Plaintiff is entitled to this made land by right of accretion. It. C. C., Art. 509; M. 216; 10 It. 99; 10 Pet. 662; 23 Wall. 46.
    2. An island subsequently joined to the main land becomes the property of the riparian proprietor. K. C. G. 518,514, 515; Marcade, T. 2, ISTos. 437, 438,439, 440.
    3. Plaintiffs have shown possession for thirty-years, and for more than ten years in good faith, under a just title translative of property, as owners, are entitled to recover. It. O. O. 3478.
    4. An apparent good title is sufficient to authorize a judgment against a defendant who pleads a general 'denial and sets up no title in himself. 3 It. 206, 317; 5 It. 510; 7 It. 149; 10 It. 99; 12 A. 748.
    5. Actual prior possession is sufficient to maintain ejectment against a mere trespasser. 14How. 292; 5 Saw. 475.
    6. Defendant,having entered by permission of plaintiff’s ancestor, can not now question the validity of plaintiff’s title, nor change the nature and origin of his original possession, nor come in competition with those under whom he holds, It. O. O. 3441, 3446, 3514; 9 It. 215; 10 An. 542; 1 Saw. 15.
    
      
      F. G. Zacharie for Defendant and Appellee:
    
      il Islands and sand bars which are formed on the beds of navigable rivers or streams, and which are not attached to the bank, belong to the State, if there be no adverse title or prescription.” R. C. C., Art. 512.
    A person entering- land in the United States Land Office, paying the price therefor and receiving his certificate therefor, going upon the land, occupying it for fourteen years, and paying taxes on it, can not be regarded as a mere trespasser without title.
    Against such a person, plaintiff in a petitory action must recover, not by the weakness of his adversary’s title, but the strength of his own; not even in the absence of any title but that based on possession. Possideo quia possideo. 2 H. 267; 12 3r. 81; 5 L. 178, 188; 10 L. 351; 14 L. 14; 1 R. 242, 378, 421; 12 R. 371; 2 An. 246; 13 An. 114.
    To recover in a petitory action, plaintiffs must show title and make it out satisfactorily both as to title and identity. 10 31. 293; 12 K. 46.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Fenner, J.

Plaintiffs, claiming title to certain sections of land designated as sections 7, 8 and 9, bring their petitory action against defendant alleging that he is in possession of a portion of said lands to which he wrongfully and falsely sets up title.

Defendants answer by a general denial.

There is no dispute as to plaintiffs’ ownership of sections 7, 8 and 9. The question is whether the land occupied by defendant is embraced within those sections. The sections were established by a U. S. Survey made in 1836 by Connelly, U. S. Surveyor.

We agree with the judge a qua that Connelly’s field notes, taken in connection with the evidence in this case, sufficiently show that his lines toward the south only ran to a sea marsh bordering a sheet of water known as West%ay, and that, at that time, the land, now in controversy, did not exist as dry land, but lay within, and was covered by the waters of West Bay. The function of Surgi, the surveyor in this case, was simply to run out and define the lines established by Connelly. There is much confused and contradictory testimony as to the errors committed by Surgi, which we need not discuss, but when he runs the lines in such manner as to embrace within them the land in controversy, which then undoubtedly lay under the waters of West Bay, it is clear he runs lines which Connelly did not and could not have run.

We take it, therefore, to be very certain that this land was not included within the lines of these sections as established by the original survey and as patented to plaintiffs’ authors by the United States.

Plaintiffs’ claim of title by accession resulting from accretion seems to us equally unfounded. The evidence shows that, after the Mississippi river found a new channel through what is called the Jump, this land was formed, by the deposits from its overflow, as an island in West Bay. Between the waters of West Bay and the southern line of plaintiffs’ sections, as established by the field notes of Connelly, there was a stretch of sea marsh, which was ceded by the United States to the State of Louisiana under Act of Congress of 1849. Therefore, the State, and not plaintiffs, was riparian proprietor on West Bay, and no accretion there formed could benefit plaintiffs. Nor were plaintiffs riparian proprietors on the Jump, in, front of this land. The Jump runs north and south, and this land lies south of plaintiffs’ line, running perpendicularly to the Jump.

Plaintiffs’ claim of 'title by prescription has no merit. The evidence is confused, contradictory and, for the most part, incomprehensible. It establishes no such certain and continuous possession as is necessary to support the plea. Defendant has been in possession for more than ten years and has been paying taxes on the land.

We can discover no ground for disturbing the conclusion reached by the District Judge.

Judgment affirmed.  