People ex rel. Burr v. Dana

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—Field, C. J. concurring. This is an action to abate a nuisance caused by the erection of buildings upon what is alleged to be a public street in the City of San Francisco, known as East Street. The case is important simply in its public aspect, and the value of the property to be affected by its decision; the principles involved are of little consequence. The only question is whether East Street extends along the water front of the city from Folsom Street to Jackson Street, as the plaintiffs contend, or merely from Folsom to Market, as‘is contended by the defendants. The buildings complained of are situated between Washington and Jackson streets, and the property is claimed by the defendants under a title derived from the State, and under a purchase at an execution sale as the property of the city. There is no question of the validity of them title, unless the property had been dedicated to public use as a street.

The plaintiffs contend that the property had been so dedicated, and in support of their position they rely chiefly upon an Act of the Legislature passed in 1851, commonly known as the Water Lot Act. It is entitled “ An Act to provide for the disposition of certain Property of the State of California,” and the property is described by metes and bounds, and designated as the “ San Fran[20]cisco Beach and Water Lots.” It provides that the boundary line therein set forth shall be and remain the permanent water front of the city, and gives to the city, with certain exceptions, the use and occupation of the property described for the term of ninety-nine years. One of the boundaries given is the “ Eastern line of East Street, to its point of intersection with the northern line of Jackson Street;” the initial point of the boundary thus given being on the southern line of Folsom Street. On the official map of the city, which was before the Legislature when the act was passed, East Street is laid down as extending only from Folsom Street to Market, and there is no evidence that it extended north of Market Street prior to that time. It is claimed that the reference in the act to its eastern line as a boundary, operated as an extension and dedication of it from Market Street to Jackson.

This point was before us in Jacobs v. Kruger (19 Cal. 411), and we there held that the construction contended for was inadmissible ; that the dedication of a street was foreign to the purposes of the act, and not within the intention of the Legislature. It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that a statute must be construed with reference to the objects intended to be accomplished by it, and the only object of the act in question was to provide for the disposition of the water lot property. Its provisions point to that object alone, and it is impossible, if we are to be governed by the ordinary rules of construction, to regard a mere reference to a street for the purpose of designating a boundary as extending the street itself. The intention of the Legislature was merely to establish a boundary, and the eastern line of East Street was adopted for convenience and certainty in fixing its location and course. This is the more apparent from the fact that the boundary established is longer than the eastern line of East Street, even if the street were extended, its initial and terminating points being separated from that street by Folsom Street at one end, and by Jackson Street at the other. These points could only be ascertained by protracting the fine at each-end of the street; and as the protracted line was necessarily in the mind of the Legislature, there is no ground for supposing that the intention was to extend the street. It is superfluous, however, to discuss the question, for the case cited is directly .in point,