Kisling v. Johnson

California Supreme Court

Kisling v. Johnson

13 Cal. 56

DecidedJuly 1, 1859

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Cal. 56 (Kisling v. Johnson) 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

Kisling v. Johnson, 13 Cal. 56 (Cal. 1859).

Pincite

Opinion

Terry, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Baldwin, J. concurring.

Defendants were by the Act of May 1st, 1855, authorized to dispose of the interest of the State in the property within the water line front of the city of San Francisco, as defined by the “Act to provide for the disposition of certain property of the State of California,” passed March 26, 1851. Their authority was limited to the property within the boundaries defined by the Act, and it is clearly shown that the lots in question are not included within those boundaries. Any disposition of them by the defendants would be a mere nullity, and could vest no right in a purchaser, which would constitute a cloud upon plaintiff's title.

Plaintiff could receive no injury from such sale, and was not entitled to an injunction.

Judgment reversed.

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

Terry, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Baldwin, J. concurring.

Defendants were by the Act of May 1st, 1855, authorized to dispose of the interest of the State in the property within the water line front of the city of San Francisco, as defined by the “Act to provide for the disposition of certain property of the State of California,” passed March 26, 1851. Their authority was limited to the property within the boundaries defined by the Act, and it is clearly shown that the lots in question are not included within those boundaries. Any disposition of them by the defendants would be a mere nullity, and could vest no right in a purchaser, which would constitute a cloud upon plaintiff's title.

Plaintiff could receive no injury from such sale, and was not entitled to an injunction.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Cal. 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kisling-v-johnson-cal-1859.