Kisling v. Johnson
Before: Terry
Synopsis
The authority of the Board of Commissioners, under the Act of May 1st, 1855, relative to a sale of the State’s interest in the water line front of the city of San Francisco, as defined by the Act of March 26th, 1851, is limited to the property within the boundaries defined by the Act; and a sale by them of lots not within those boundaries, is a nullity, and cannot constitute cloud of title. Hence an injunction against such sale will not lie.
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.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)