The record-union., 1895-07-02
TIE CLUNIE TITLE Is ALL RIGHT.
Tom Not to be Disturbed in His River
Front Rights.
Judge Catlin Finds a Regular Success
sion OF Tranfers of the Ware
house Property.

Judge Catlin yesterday decided the case
OF the city against Thomas j. Clunie, In
volving the title to bit of ground on the
river front, where Clunie's warehouse
stands, in favor of the latter.
The court reviews the history of the
Sutter titles and transfers of property in
the city and finds that in 1851 Brannan,
Bruce, Graham and Wetzlar conveyed to
Edward S. Gillespie the block embracing
the property in dispute, and that Giles
pie subsequently conveyed the same to
Southgate Smith, from whom Clunie OBJ
tanned his deed.
Briefly stated" says Judge Catlin,
"the title to the territory known as Bran
mans Addition passed from General Sut-
ter to his son October IA, 1913; thence back
to Sutter. Sr.. June 25, 1849; thence to w.
S. Mesick September IA, 1852; thence to
SouthSate Smith May 20, 1857.
This passage of the title to Brannan's
Addition was not intercepted by the
deed of January 2, 1919, of Sutter, Jr., TO
the present and future owners, etc. nor
by the deed OF Sutter, Sr., to Sutter, Jr.,
of May Z. 1850: nor by the deed of June
20, 1850, to Brannan, Bruce. Graham and
Wetzlar; nor by the deed of October II,
1850; and, ii is needless to add, nor by
the survey and filing of the Ruth map,
May g. 1851.
1.-The claim of the plaintiff rests en-
tirely on what is claimed to have been a
dedication of the streets in Brannan's
Addition to public use in May, 1851, by
persons assuming to be owners of the
land. 1t clearly appears that such dedi-
Gators had no right, title or interest in
the land at the time of the dedication, nor
afterwards, and it further appears that
the city never assumed any control over
nor made any use of the streets, nor, un-
til the commencement Of this suit, ever
set up any claim to or concerning them.
The building of q small levee on the bank
OF the river in 1852 was not an act in the
nature OF an acceptance of the supposed
dedication, nor an act in the nature of
opening or improving of q street. It
must be presumed that the real owners
of the land consented to such occupation
for the purpose of levee.
''At later times, in 1862 and 1892, when
the real owners of the property had
taken possession Of and improved it with
costly buildings, and the city desired to
improve its levee, it set up no claim or
right to the street delienated on the Ruth
map, but on the contrary fully and freely
acknowledged the rights and possessions
of the defendant and his predecessors by
paying them satisfactory compensation
Tor such privileges as the city needed in
the matter of levee improvements.
II think this case is a good deal analogous
to the case OF Los Angeles against Cohn
(101 Cal. 373), and quite as strong in it's
equitable aspects, leaving out OF the
question the legal right OF the defendant
by virtue OF his legal title. In that case
it was held that the principle of estoppel
IN pals may be applied against the public
in exceptional cases when justice and
right require it.
''My conclusion is that the plaintiff is
not entitled to recover, and that, upon
both the legal and equitable grounds
herein stated, the defendant is entitled to
Judgment"