City of Los Angeles v. Pacific Land Corp.

California Court of Appeal Oct 18, 1940 No. Civ. No. 12664Published

Before: McComb

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the 1917 amendment to the 1911 act did not grant the City of Los Angeles tide lands in the Westgate Addition because the relevant language was a reenactment of the 1911 law, which only applied to boundaries existing at that time.

Issues

Did the 1917 amendment grant the City of Los Angeles tide lands in the Westgate Addition, which was annexed after the 1911 act but before the 1917 amendment?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the words in section 1 of the 1917 act, “There is hereby granted to the City of Los Angeles ... all tide lands and submerged lands . . . within the present boundaries of said city ...” are a reenactment of identical words in the act of 1911.”

“the quoted words refer and relate to the date of the original enactment in 1911 and not to the amended statute as adopted in 1917.”

“as the tide lands embraced within the Westgate Addition were not within the boundaries of the plaintiff in 1911, the legislature did not grant said tide lands to plaintiff.”

McCOMB, J. From a judgment in favor of defendants predicated upon the granting of their motion for a judgment on the pleadings in an action to quiet title to certain tide lands located within the area of the City of Los Angeles known as the Westgate Addition, plaintiff appeals.

The essential facts are:

In 1911 the legislature granted to the City of Los Angeles the tide lands “within the present boundaries of said city” (Stats. 1911, p. 1256). The act contained among others this provision:

“Provided, that said city, or its successors, may grant franchises thereon for limited periods, for wharves and other public uses and purposes, and may lease said lands, or any part thereof, for limited periods, for purposes consistent with the trusts upon which said lands are held by the State of California, and with the requirements of commerce or navigation at said harbor; ...”

Thereafter in 1917 the legislature amended the foregoing provision of the 1911 act so far as is material to the present litigation to read as follows (Stats. [1917] 159) :

“Provided, that said city, or its successors, may grant franchises thereon for limited periods, IN ANY EVENT NOT TO EXCEED THIRTY YEARS for wharves and other public uses and purposes, and may lease said lands, or any part thereof, for limited periods, IN ANY EVENT NOT TO EXCEED THIRTY YEARS for any and all purposes which shall not interfere with commerce or navigation, and are not inconsistent with the trusts upon which said lands are held by the State of California; ...” (Note the words in capitals are not in the 1911 act.)

Section 1 of both acts reads in part thus:

“Section 1. There is hereby granted to the City of Los Angeles ... all the right, title and interest of the State of California ... in and to all tidelands and submerged lands, . . . within the present boundaries of said city. ...”

In 1916 there was annexed to plaintiff, the City of Los Angeles, an area known as the Westgate Addition, in which is embraced the tide land which is the subject of the present litigation.

This is the sole question necessary for us to determine:

Did the legislature in passing the act of July 27, 1917 (Stats. [1917] 159) entitled “An act to amend section one of [225]

City of Los Angeles v. Pacific Land Corp.

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief