People ex rel. Jacobs v. Kruger
Before: Baldwin
Synopsis
The Act of March 26th, 1851, (Stat. 1851, 307) commonly called the Beach and Water Lot Act of San Francisco, did not extend the line of East street, from Clay to Jackson, through the slip property to the water line front as established by the act. The phrase in the first section of that act, “ thence northerly on the eastern line of East street to its point of intersection with the northern side of Jackson street,” was not designed to lay off and establish a street, or to protect the line of a street already existing; but was intended simply to fix the boundary so as to show what was conveyed by the act; and this was done by giving the course of the street as a single line protracted from East street to its intersection with Jackson.
And hence, where defendant, in September, 1851, on sale under judgment against the city, had purchased her title to a portion of the ground covered by said East street, between Clay and Jackson, and had subsequently purchased the State’s interest in the same, these purchases being prior to any acts by the city declaring the street open as a public street: Held, that defendant owns the property as against the city; that her ordinances laying out this street being passed subsequently to defendant’s acquisition of the city title, have no effect upon defendant, because the proper proceedings were not taken to condemn the land to public use.
The fact that East street was dedicated on the old plan of the city—that is, the map or plan of 1850—is insufficient to extend the street as a public highway beyond its first limits—to wit: from Folsom'street to the southerly side of Market—and to the bay.
Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Cope, J. concurring.
We take the same view of the main question in this case as that taken by the referee and the District Court.
The question is, whether the street on which it is claimed the defendant intruded—namely, East street, in the city of San Francisco—was legally established to the water line prior to the passing of the city title to the defendant or his predecessor. It is not [421]pretended that any street was actually laid out to the bay prior to the sale by "the Sheriff of this lot of defendant’s as the property of the city; but the appellants insist that, by the terms of the Water Lot Bill of 1851, the line of East street was extended to the water front. By that bill, the State granted to the city certain property for ninety-nine years ; and the boundaries are given, a part of which is as follows: “ Thence northerly on tile eastern line of East street to its point of intersection with the northern side of Jackson street.” But this phrase was not designed to lay off a street or to protract the line of a street already existing. The Legislature might well trust the city with such police and municipal regulation. The only object was to fix a boundary in order to show what was conveyed. This could as well be done by giving the course, or the imaginary or real line of the given street, as by opening and establishing the street to the desired point and making it the boundary. The line protracted from East street to its point of intersection with the northern side of Jackson street, would give this idea and answer this purpose of the Legislature, and it was not at all necessary in this indirect and collateral way for the Legislature to go to the trouble of establishing a street for the city of San Francisco ; and we cannot presume, either from the language or the reason of the act, that such was the Legislative design.
It follows that, as the ground occupied by the defendant belonged to the city, and the defendant succeeded to the city title before any acts of the city authorities were taken to turn it into a street, the acts are without effect upon the defendant, since the proper proceedings were not taken to condemn it or subject it to the public use.
■ There is nothing in the point that, as East street had been dedicated on the old plan of the city, this was sufficient to extend the street as a public highway beyond its first limits and to the bay.
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)