Guy v. Hermance (1855) · DecisionDepot

Guy v. Hermance

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1855Published

Before: Heydenfeldt

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The State's right to tide-flowed lands is limited to its sovereign control over navigation, and the Legislature lacks the authority to exempt specific parties from general judicial remedies like injunctions.

Issues

Does the State's right to lands under water persist if the easement of navigation is destroyed?
Can the Legislature prohibit the issuance of injunctions against specific parties?
Does a party have the right to prevent a sale that would create a cloud on their title?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The right of the State to lands under water where the tide ebbs and flows, is founded upon her sovereign control over the easement, or right of navigation.”

Synopsis

The right of the State to lands under water, where the tide ebhs and flows, is founded upon her sovereign control over the easement, or right of navigation.

Where this easement is destroyed, the right of the State ceases, except to prosecute for perpresturc, and have the easement restored.

The Legislature cannot exercise judicial functions.

That portion of an Act prescribing that no injunction shall he issued against the Commissioners, appointed for the sale of the State interest within the water line, is invalid.

The right of a party to have his title to land protected from a sale which may create a cloud upon it, upheld.

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurred.

1. The right of the State to lands under water where the tide ebbs and flows, is founded upon her sovereign control over the easement, or right of navigation. Where, therefore, the easement is destroyed, the right of the State ceases, except to prosecute for perpresture, and have the easement restored.

2. The Legislature cannot exercise judicial functions, and therefore cannot except one case, or one party, from the operation of a. general rule of law, either as to right or remedy. That portion therefore of the Act of May, 1853, entitled, “ An Act to provide for the sale of the interest of the State of California in the property within the water [75]line,” &e., which prescribes that no injunction shall be issued against the Commissioners is invalid.

3. The right of a party to have his title to land protected from a sale which might create a cloud upon it, was upheld by this Court in the cases of Smith v. Morse, 2 Cal. 524. Shattuck v. Carson, 2 Cal. 588

Judgment affirmed.

Guy v. Hermance

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief