Rondel v. Fay

California Supreme Court

Rondel v. Fay

1 Cal. Unrep. 835

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedApril 16, 1874

DocketNo. 2706

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 835 (Rondel v. Fay) 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

Rondel v. Fay, 1 Cal. Unrep. 835 (Cal. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

RHODES, J.

— It was decided in this case on the former appeal (Rondell v. Fay, 32 Cal. 360) that the patent of the state to the North San Francisco Homestead and Railroad Company did not convey any lands lying above high-water mark — that is to say, above the line of ordinary tides. Upon the issue as to whether the lands upon which the trespass was committed were below that line — were tide lands — the evidence was conflicting. The evidence was also conflicting upon the issue as to whether the plaintiff had the possession of the lands described in the complaint. The verdict upon those issues will not be disturbed.

There was evidence introduced by the plaintiff which showed that he had sustained damages by means of the alleged trespass exceeding the amount of the verdict.

Judgment and order affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.

We concur: McKinstry, J.; Crockett, J.; Niles, J.

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

RHODES, J.

— It was decided in this case on the former appeal (Rondell v. Fay, 32 Cal. 360) that the patent of the state to the North San Francisco Homestead and Railroad Company did not convey any lands lying above high-water mark — that is to say, above the line of ordinary tides. Upon the issue as to whether the lands upon which the trespass was committed were below that line — were tide lands — the evidence was conflicting. The evidence was also conflicting upon the issue as to whether the plaintiff had the possession of the lands described in the complaint. The verdict upon those issues will not be disturbed.

There was evidence introduced by the plaintiff which showed that he had sustained damages by means of the alleged trespass exceeding the amount of the verdict.

Judgment and order affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.

We concur: McKinstry, J.; Crockett, J.; Niles, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Unrep. 835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rondel-v-fay-cal-1874.