The San Francisco call., 1896-08-11
ITS WATER FRONT
IN THE BALANCE.
The Fate of 0akland's Shore
Line Soon to Be
Settled.
ARGUED ON APPEAL.
The Cases Submitted to the De.
cision of the Supreme Court
in Bank.
POINTS MADE BY LAWYERS.
Ex. Judge CARRIER, Attorney E. ].
Pringle and Other Legal Lights
Address the Bench.
POINTS MADE BY LAWYERS.

The Oakland waterfront cases occupied
the attention of the entire Supreme bench
yesterday, the seven Justices sitting in
bank during the whole days session. The
arguments enued about 5 o clock and the
cases were then submitted. In the case
of the People against the Oakland Water
Front Company, on the application of the
respondent, space of fifteen days was
allowed for the filing of a brief in reply.
Ex-Judge CARRIER argued for the respond
ent in the case of the City of Oakland
against the Water Front Company, and in
the action of the Oakland Water Front
Company against Dameron and others
Attorney H. S. Brown opened the argu-
ment for the appellant, being followed by
Ben Morgan, Michael Mullaney and e. ].
Pringle for the respondents. ex-Judge
CARRIER speaking in reply.
Mr.. Pringle contended thas the grant of
the Oakland water front to Horace w.
Carpenter in 1852, from which all the
cases take their origin, did not convey to
Carpenter title to the property in fee
simple. Carpenter was to hold the land
in trust for the purpose OF improving it
and constructing wharves upon it. The
grant, he said, was m ade for the purpose
of facilitating the Improvements contem-
plated and not in order to enrich Carpen-
tier by conveying to him valuable prop
erty. At most, life estate was conveyed
by the terms of the grant, the omission
of the word heirs" for which the words
''assigns and legal Representatives" were
substituted, being fatal to any claim of
title in fee simple.
AS to the contention of the learned
counsel on the other side, TO the effect that
any irregularity in the first grant was
remedled by the conhrmatory grant of the
year following" continued Mr.. Pringie,
"the answer is simple. The grant OF 1852
was plainly insufficient to establish an ab-
solute title, and The confirmatory one of
August 27, 1853, merely ratified it and con-
firmed it. 1t is we'll known maxim of
common law that 'qui confirmat nihil
dat, in other words, that nothing is given
by merely confirming and ratifying gift
already made"
do you mean to say" interposed JUS
tice Mcfarland, that if you make con-
veyance to me and after year or so we
come to the conclusion that that convey
aDce is insufficient, we cannot make
another2''
Certainly not" was Mr.. Pringle's re-
sponse; "but if the second conveyance
were merely confirmation of the first, it
could convey no more than the first pur-
ported to convey. Anyhow this confirma-
tory grant cannot mend matters. 10 be
sure, after repeating the words of the
original grant it goes on to say that the
Oakland water front is conveyed to Car
pentier in fee simple, forever, but even
in that additional clause no mention is
made of heirs 1 know there is one case
from the New Hampshire Reports cited
in support of the contrary view; but it is
in opposition to all other decisions in this
country and in England. / contend that
neither by the original grant nor by the
contirmatcry conveyance did Carpenter