Walker v. Marks
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of California
Action to recover lands. The premises in controversy are a portion of the bay of San Francisco, being permanently covered by the navigable waters of the bay at low tide. They lie in front of the city of San Francisco, and would be bounded by Montgomery, Chestnut, Sansome and Francisco streets, if those streets, as originally laid out, should be extended.
Read the full summary
Action to recover lands. The premises in controversy are a portion of the bay of San Francisco, being permanently covered by the navigable waters of the bay at low tide. They lie in front of the city of San Francisco, and would be bounded by Montgomery, Chestnut, Sansome and Francisco streets, if those streets, as originally laid out, should be extended. They lie wholly outside of the water front of San Francisco, as established by the act of March 26, 1851, entitled “An act to provide for the disposition' of certain property of the state of California.” The plaintiff [James D. AA'alker]…
1Opinion of the Court
SAWYER, Circuit Judge.
The only question in this case is, whether the alcalde grants to Calender and Clarke were confirmed by the said act of May 14, 1801. It has long been settled by* the supreme court of the state of California, that grants by* former alcaldes of San Francisco, of portions of the navigable waters of the bay of San Francisco are void, for want of authority' in the officer asuming to make them. This is no longer questioned; and it is not even claimed in this case, that the grants under which plaintiff claims, inde*37pendent of the statute referred to. were valid. But plaintiff…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- People ex rel. Teschemacher v. DavidsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
3Cited by1 opinion
- Andrus v. KnottOregon Supreme Court · 1885