Case ID: cal_4/html/0397-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Oh. J. Murray", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

* CHARLES W. COOK and EDWARD JONES, Respondents, v. AUGUST BONNET, Appellant.
    
       San Ebancisco, Watee Line oe City. — The Act of March 26th, 1851, which requires the City of San Erancisco to deposit in the office of the Secretary of State a map of the water lot property granted to the city by the samo Act, does not malee such map conclusive evidence of the extent of said property, aa the boundaries are completely specified in the Act, and the question of what was the water line of the city, at the date of the Act, is one of fact.
    Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco.
    This was an action of ejectment. The cause was tried by the Court without a jury, by consent. The Court found the following facts, and made the following decision:
    , 1st. That the premises described in the complaint were, on the 6th day of July, 1849, granted by Thaddeus M. Leavenworth, Alcalde of San Francisco, to one Randolph M. Cooley.
    2d. That the said grant was, before the 3d day of April, 1850, confirmed by the Ayuntamiento, or Town Council, of the City of San Francisco.
    3d. That before the 3d day of April, 1850, the said grant was registered and 'recorded in a book of records, which, on and before the 26th of March, 1850, was in the office, custudy and control of the Recorder of the County of San Francisco.
    4th. That the said lot, No. 82, described in the complaint, is one of the lots in the City of San Francisco, which in, and by the Act of the Legislature of California, entitled ‘ ‘ An Act to provide for the disposition of certain property of the State of California,” passed March 26th, 1851, are known and designated as the “ San Francisco Beach and Water Lots.”.
    5th. That by a regular chain of intermediate conveyances from the said Cooley to plaintiffs, the property so granted passed and was duly conveyed to the said plaintiffs, before the commencement of this action.
    
      
       *6tli. That at the time of the commencement of this action, the defendant was in possession of the premises.
    7th. That the said lot 82 lies and is situated inland and westwardly of the red' line purporting to delineate high water mark, upon the official map of the city, certified and filed under the aforesaid Act of 26th of March, 1851.
    Upon these facts, the Court decreed that the plaintiffs were the owners of the premises described in the complaint in this action, for the unexpired term of ninety-nine years from the 26th day of March, A. D. 1851, and were entitled to recover the possession thereof in this action, and judgment was ordered to that effect.
    The defendant appealed.
    
      George B. Tingley, for Appellant.
    
      Lockwood & Hammond, for Respondent.
    
      
       Cited iu Griffmg v. Gibb, 1 McAll. 223.
    
   Mr. Oh. J. Murray

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. J. Heydeneeldt concurred.

The 5th section of the Act of March 26th, 1851, entitled “An Act to provide for the disposition of certain property of the State of California,” which requires the City of San Francisco to deposit a map of the property so granted, in the office of the Secretary of State, correctly delineating said property by means of red lines, does not make such map conclusive evidence of the extent of said property.

The boundaries are completely specified in the Act, and the question, what was the water line of the city at the date of the Act, is one of fact, and is not concluded by the red line drawn by the surveyor.

Judgment affirmed.