Case Name: ASTORIA EXCHANGE COMPANY v. SHIVELY
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1895-03-04
Citations: 27 Or. 104
Docket Number: 
Parties: ASTORIA EXCHANGE COMPANY v. SHIVELY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 104–110

Head Matter:
Argued January 16;
decided March 4, 1895.
ASTORIA EXCHANGE COMPANY v. SHIVELY.
[39 Pac. 398; 40 Pac. 92.]
Tide Lands — Section 855, Hild’s Code.— Section 845 of the act of October eleventh, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, entitled “An act to provide a Code of Civil Procedure,” (now section 855, Hill’s' Code,) which, in subdivision 5, provides that when tide water is the boundary in a conveyance of real property, the rights of the grantor to low-water mark are included, and also the right of the state between high and low-water mark, did not operate as a grant by the state of its tide lands to the proprietors of the adjacent bank, and was never intended to so operate.
Appeal from Clatsop: Thos. A. McBride, Judge.
This is a suit brought by the Astoria Exchange Company against Charles W. Shively and Annie M., his wife, to quiet its title to certain tide lands in front of the city of Astoria. There was an answer filed, and a demurrer thereto having been sustained, plaintiff was allowed to dismiss without prejudice to its rights. Defendants appeal from both rulings.
Affirmed.
For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. Sidney Bell.
For respondent there was a brief by Mr. John Q. A. Bowlby.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The facts of this case are similar in all their controlling features to the case of Bowlby v. Shively, decided by this court June eighteenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-two, 22 Or. 410, (30 Pac. 354,) and affirmed on writ of error by the Supreme Court of the United States: Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1 (14 Sup. Ct. 548). After a most careful consideration of the case at bar, we are satisfied that all the points and principles of law arising therein were involved and ably and exhaustively considered in the case of Bowlby v. Shively, 22 Or. 410, (30 Pac. 154,) and fully and comprehensively settled. We must, therefore, regard the decision of the latter case as decisive of this. The complaint herein was filed upon the same date as that in Bowlby v. Shively, and the issues, so far as they were concluded, were formulated about the same time. The Bowlby case was first brought on for hearing as a test case, upon the assumption that the same conclusion must necessarily be reached in both cases, but now it is claimed that this case contains other points for our consideration not passed upon in that. With this contention we are unable to concur. It could accomplish no good purpose for us at this time to reconsider the doctrine of that case, as the reasoning and conclusions reached are in full accord with the present views of the court. Hence the judgment of the court below is affirmed. Affirmed.
Decided April 29, 1895.