The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1893-02-28
CLUNIE, OR THE CITY?
Who Owns the River Front by the
Warehouse2
Lawyers McKune and George Say 1t
Belongs to the City-Interest-
ing Discovery.

city. Doubt having been excited some
time ago in the minds of the Trustees as
10 the title 10 some of the water front, the
firm mentioned were instructed by the
board to investigate the matter. Their
report confirmed the suspicious already
raised, and action will probably soon be
taken to recover possession OF the land in
question. The following is the
ATTORNEYS OPINION.
To the Honorable, the Board of Trustees
Of the city Of Sacramento: Under in
structions from the Mayor of your city we
have Investigated certain questions of
fact and law touching the ownership
and possession of certain lots and streets,
rs follows:
l. What are the true boundaries of
block l in Brannan's Addition?
:. What is the status of the land living
between that block and the Sacramento
River?
,. Are any of the buildings in that i'm
mediate vicinity located in whole or in
part on the lands of tine city or any street
OF the city over which the city authori-
Lies can exercise jurisdiction?
/. What parties claim a right to occupy
or use the streets in that vicinity, If any?
>. as matter Of law can the city assume
jurisdiction and control over such public
property at this time?
We have Investigated these matters as
well as the limited time would permit,
and without going into details as to our
sources of information as to the matters
OF fact, we submit the following as our
conclusion of TACT:
l. On May 2, 1851, Samuel Brannan, S.
g. Bruce, }. S. Graham and julius Wetz-
lar were the owners of all the land lying
west of Front street and south of q street,
and north of ) street, except r street,
heretofore dedicated as public street to
The river.
?. On that day Brannan, Bruce, Graham
md Wetzlar re-dedicated @ street and r
street to public uses and dedicated South
Jevee street also to public uses strictly in
accordance with the plan of block l,
with the adjoining streets herewith sub
United, mark ed Exhibit 4, :" hereby re-
lerred to and made part hereof.
5. On June rs, 1851, Brannan, Bruce,
Graham and Wetzlar conveyed said block
one to Eugene +. Gillispie, and Gillispie
subsequently, on the 10th day of August,
1885, sold the block to L. Southgate Smith.
In this latter deed and all subsequent
conveyances of title to said block, the
words of description of the land conveyed
are substantially: Beginning at point
where the north line OF q street, if ex-
tended to the Sacramento River, would
1nierSect the west line OF Front street in
said city; thence in a southerly direction
with and upon the west line of Front
street TO point where the said west line
of Front street would intersect point on
r street, If extended, forty feet south of
the southeast corner of lot number four
IN block number one of said Brannan's
Addition 10 Sacramento City; thence at
right angles in a westerly direction to the
Sacramento River at low-water mark;
thence up said river, at low-water mark,
10 point directly opposite the point of
starting; thence east to the place of be-
ginning, embracing within its boundaries
block number one of Brannan's Addi-
ton, and all the land lying between said
block number one and the Sacramento
River.
!. Thomas J. Clunie has intruded upon
and is in possession of part of these
streets OF this city as shown in Exhibit
A."
3. The Sacramento Valley Railroad is
using part Of these streets under con-
tract with said Clunie and his grantors
and not under ordinances granted by the
city.
The law arising out of the foregoing
facts seems clear.
a. The city may maintain a proper ac-
tion against the said Clunie and secure a
Judgment restoring it to the possession
and use of the streets so occupied by his
buildings.
d. The statute of limitations cannot
be successfully pleaded in bar of such
action.
(c.) The city may resume control of the
streets, including the water front, along
The west side OF South Levee street as
shown on the map and extending to O
street, thus enabling the city to enlarge
and care for the levee, unobstructed by
parties asserting private rights therein.
In the dedication of Levee street,
Nlessrs. Brannan, Bruce, Graham and
WetZler intended to leave wide space
between the blocks they offered for sale
and the river for the uses OF the city in
the construction of a leyee and for
public thoroughfare.
But south Of ) street, since 1851, the
river has cut away its banks, also Levee
street below I street. and the line of the
levee south of T street crosses the blocks
sold to private parties.
We have marked the buildings en-
croaching on streets Of this city in red
ink on the map and we add the following
explanations:
/. The red lines show the boundary
lines of block one in Brannan's addition.
>. "B'' is large brick warehouse en-
croaching on r street 4l.01 feet and on
Levee street 1906 feet.
3. "C'' is a large wooden warehouse
wholly on Levee street, l76 feet along
Levee street and some 10 or so feet out into
and over the river.
4. I'D" and "E' are wholly in South
Levee street.
3. "F'' is a large shed partly in
South Levee street and partly in @ street.
%. " - Il large Su6u partly IN V street
and partly north of the north line OF q
street.
:. All" is an open space used for stor-
ing lumber.
We prepared Ordinance No. II in 1872
and had occasion 10 examine all the ordi-
nances ofyour city we could then find, and
we have examined later printed volumes
containing ordinances.
We have also applied to your Clerk
City Auditor and we find no ordinance
vacating q, X or Levee streets, and thus
our opinion is given on the theory that
none exists. Respectfully,
MCKUNE & GEORGE.
Dated February p, 1893.
THE TRUSTEES SURPRISED.
4 diagram accompanied the document,
which showed that the warehouse and
three sheds on the river bank stand on
the city's ground, as well as the office site
on q street.
The Mayor stated that this was a great
surprise to him. If the city owns this
land the board should take steps to en-
force its rights over it. General Clunie
has already collected thousands of dol
lars as rent for this property, which the
CITY should have had. One firm alone is
paving him $500 per month.
trustee Green thought that if the city
owns the property the Trustees should
take steps to ascertain the fact beyond a
doubt.
Trustee Conklin said that although