The San Francisco call., 1895-07-19
BERNAL RANCHO TITLES,
A Supreme Court Decision In
One of the Old Time
Land Fights.
THE LAW OF BOUNDARY LINES.
Justice Harrison on Rights of Grant,
ors and Grantees Along
Tidal Streams.

The Supreme Court yesterday handed
| down decision in the case OF A. G. Free
man ct al. VS.. Bellegarde ct al to quiet
title to lands in the Bernal Rancho. The
Judgment of the lower court IN favor OF
| Freeman has been affirmed, except as 1t
related to two of the defendants, Thomas
| and Luty, for whom a new trial is ordered.
This action is to determine the right to
the portions of the land between the south
shore of Islais Creek and the bed OF the
stream. The stream empties into San
Francisco Bay and the water ebbs ana
| flows for some distance above its mouth.
At the line of the disputed land nearest
the bay the creek is 800 feet wide at ordl-
nary tides, and the point that is covered
and uncovered by the tides has width OF
$50 feet between the bank of the stream
and the ordinary low-water line. AT high
tide the water nearest the bay is about
three feet deep, and at point below the
lands in controversy there is at low tlde no
water in the creek, thus rendering the
creek mere basin which is hlled ana
emptied by the ebb and flow OF the tloe.
The patent for the Bernal ranch covers
| the bed of Islais Greek and the land on
both banks. The title of the plaintiffs was
derived by them through foreclosure OF
mortgage given by the Bernals to j.. Mora
Moss and subsequent conveyance from
| the grantees of Moss to John Hewston.
| The litigation was about the construction
of descriptions given in the mortgage.
Showing that the center line OF the creek
| is the proper boundary in the case, Justice
| Harrison thus expounds the law:
| The call in the mortgage "to mouth of creek"
rendered the thread OF the creek the boundary
! of the land mortgaged. In the absence OF any
| qualifying term, the designation in a convey
ance OF any physical object or monument as a
boundary implies the middle or central POM the
/ of such boundary; as, for instance, IL the
| boundary be road or highway or stream,
the thread of the road stream will be in
! tended. private grant is 20 be interpreted
! in favor of the grantee, and If the grantor is
the owner of the monument or boundary des-
| ignated in his grant, his conveyance will be
! held to extend to the middle line or central
| point of such monument or boundary.
This rule is not changed by reason OF the fact
that stream which is designated as boun-
| dairy is tidal stream. II the grantor OF tne
| land is the owner of the bed of such stream.
The title to the beds of tidal streams IS
ordinarily vested in the sovereign, and In such
| q case grant from the sovereign Will be con-
| strued to extend only to hlgh-water marx,
when the grant is bounded by tidal waters.
! grant from the sovereign is to be interpreted In
| favor of the grantor contrary TO the rule for
| interpreting grants to private individuals; but
| if, as in the present case, the sovereign has
parted with the title to the land beneath the
stream q grant of the riparian lands by the
owner must receive the same construction as g.
grant by him of any other riparian lands.
After reviewing the details of the specific
case under consideration, Justice Harrison
continues:
The term "shore" in its ordinary use signi-
fies the land is periodically covered and un-
| covered by the tide, but it is sometimes applied
to a river or pond as synonymous with bank.
In the absence OF any qualification, grant
| bounded by the ''shore" of river when the
grantor is the owner of the river. conveys the
| land up to the lowest point of the shore at any
| time, in order that the grantee may at all
times have access to the stream by which the
! land is bounded.
| 1t is competent, however, for the grantor to
| so designate the line on the shore which shall
constitute the boundary that there shall be
| no uncertainty in its location, and in such
| case the line of high or low water mark would
| be immaterial in determining the extent of
| the grant.
Many property-owners are concerned in
the decision of the case that has called for
this expression of the law, but the Superior
| Court conclusions are maintained except
| in the cases of Thomas and Luty. The
claims of these men are not founded on
the Bernal grant to Moss.