City of San Francisco v. Ellis (1879) · DecisionDepot

City of San Francisco v. Ellis

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1879 No. No. 6187Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove its claim of fee simple ownership of the subject lands, as the Act of March 27th, 1874, did not operate as a grant of the premises to the plaintiff.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff established its claim of fee simple ownership of the lands described in the complaint.
Whether the Act of March 27th, 1874, operated as a grant of the premises to the plaintiff.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This averment was not sustained by the evidence.”

“We agree with the Court below that the Act of March 27th, 1874, (Stats. 1873-4, p. 711) did not operate a grant of the premises to plaintiff.”

Synopsis

Sab Francisco—Statute, Construction of—Variance.—The Act of March 27th, 1874, (Stats. 1873-4, p. 711,) authorizing and requiring the Board of Supervisors of the plaintiff to sell at public auction all of Channel Street and Mission Creek, except so much thereof as might be required for a street and sewer, and providing that the deed of the mayor to the purchaser of any lot, should vest the title in such purchaser, did not operate as a grant to the plaintiff.

Same—Quiet Title, Action to.—In an action hy the plaintiff to quiet title to a portion of the said land, against one claiming under a deed, subsequent to the act, from the Board of Tide Land Commissioners—the complaint alleging that the plaintiff was seized of the land: Held, that the action could not he maintained, for want of title in the plaintiff, and that it was, therefore, unnecessary to examine the title of defendant.

By the Court: It is not necessary to decide whether the lands described in the complaint were withdrawn from disposition (by the Board of Tide Land Commissioners) by the first section of the Act of April 1st, 1872, (Stats. 1871-2, p. 926) or whether the plaintiff acquired an easement to drain into the “ open canal ” provided for in this act. Nor is it necessary to determine what [74]rights, if any, the defendants have acquired in the lands. The only right of plaintiff alleged is set forth in the complaint as follows:

“ Plaintiff further states, according to information and belief, that ever since the 27th day of March, A. D. 1874, the plaintiff has been and is seized in fee simple and the owner of all those certain lots, pieces, or parcels of land situate, lying, and being within the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, and respectively bounded and described as follows; ” * *

This averment was not sustained by the evidence. We agree with the Court below that the Act of March 27th, 1874, (Stats. 1873-4, p. 711) did not operate a grant of the premises to plaintiff.

Judgment and order affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.

City of San Francisco v. Ellis

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief