Case Name: NORTON et al. v. HYATT
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1857
Citations: 8 Cal. 539
Docket Number: 
Parties: NORTON et al. v. HYATT.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 539–540

Head Matter:
NORTON et al. v. HYATT.
The confirmation of the title of the city of San Francisco, by the Board of United States Land Commissioners, and the dismissal of the appeal by the Attorney-General, have settled that no title to lands, within the limits of that city, can hereafter bo acquired from the United States.
It follows, that any title accruing to individuals, since July 7, 1846, must have been derived from the local authorities of the city.
The regulation forbidding grants to be made within two hundred varas of the water-line of the bay, had reference only to a portion of the present city front.
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District.
This was an action of ejectment, to recover the possession of a lot in the city of San Francisco, known as fifty-vara lot fourteen hundred and eighty-four. Plaintiffs claimed under a grant made by T. M. Leavenworth, alcalde, to William S. Clark, dated September 9,1848. The defendant relied upon possession, and also claimed under a grant made by G. Q. Colton, justice of the peace, to Joseph Runes,' dated December 19, 1849. The case was tried, by consent, without a jury, and the 'plaintiffs recovered judgment, from which defendant appealed.
E. W. F. Sloan for Appellant.
E. Norton and A. C. Whitcomb, Respondents, in person.

Opinion:
Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, C. J., concurring.
The confirmation of the city title by the United States Land Commissioners, and the dismissal, by the Attorney-General of the United States, of the appeal from their decision, has settled that no title to lands, within the limits of that city can hereafter be acquired from the United States. It also follows that any title accruing to individuals, since the seventh July, 1846, must have been derived from the local authorities of the city.
The only point made by the defendant is, that the premises in dispute lie within two hundred varas of the water-line of the bay, and that, under the laws of Mexico, the alcalde could not make any grant of lots within that distance.
But from the proofs in the case, it appears that the lot in question was not situated within the limits intended by the regulations then applicable to the pueblo of San Francisco, although the lot is within two hundred varas of the water-line. These regulations had reference only to a part of the present city front, and did no't embrace the lot in question.
It is unnecessary to express any opinion as to whether those regulations had any force after the seventh July, 1846.
Judgment affirmed.