City of San Francisco v. Ellis

California Supreme Court

City of San Francisco v. Ellis

54 Cal. 72

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1879

DocketNo. 6187

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 54 Cal. 72 (City of San Francisco v. Ellis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of San Francisco v. Ellis, 54 Cal. 72 (Cal. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court:

It is not necessary to decide whether the lands described in the complaint were withdrawn from disposition (by the Board of Tide Land Commissioners) by the first section of the Act of April 1st, 1872, (Stats. 1871-2, p. 926) or whether the plaintiff acquired an easement to drain into the “ open canal ” provided for in this act. Nor is it necessary to determine what [74]*74rights, if any, the defendants have acquired in the lands. The only right of plaintiff alleged is set forth in the complaint as follows:

“ Plaintiff further states, according to information and belief, that ever since the 27th day of March, A. D. 1874, the plaintiff has been and is seized in fee simple and the owner of all those certain lots, pieces, or parcels of land situate, lying, and being within the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, and respectively bounded and described as follows; ” * *

This averment was not sustained by the evidence. We agree with the Court below that the Act of March 27th, 1874, (Stats. 1873-4, p. 711) did not operate a grant of the premises to plaintiff.

Judgment and order affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court:

It is not necessary to decide whether the lands described in the complaint were withdrawn from disposition (by the Board of Tide Land Commissioners) by the first section of the Act of April 1st, 1872, (Stats. 1871-2, p. 926) or whether the plaintiff acquired an easement to drain into the “ open canal ” provided for in this act. Nor is it necessary to determine what [74]*74rights, if any, the defendants have acquired in the lands. The only right of plaintiff alleged is set forth in the complaint as follows:

“ Plaintiff further states, according to information and belief, that ever since the 27th day of March, A. D. 1874, the plaintiff has been and is seized in fee simple and the owner of all those certain lots, pieces, or parcels of land situate, lying, and being within the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, and respectively bounded and described as follows; ” * *

This averment was not sustained by the evidence. We agree with the Court below that the Act of March 27th, 1874, (Stats. 1873-4, p. 711) did not operate a grant of the premises to plaintiff.

Judgment and order affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 Cal. 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-san-francisco-v-ellis-cal-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack