Shirley v. Bishop
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Solano County. The wharf of the defendants was being constructed under the authority of a franchise granted by the board of trustees of the city of Benicia. The further facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Foote, C.
Action to prevent the construction of a wharf and to cause the removal of a portion thereof already constructed. The plaintiffs recovered judgment, there was no motion for a new *545trial, and the cause comes to this court on the judgment roll alone.
Upon all material issues made by the pleadings, the findings were sufficient.
Among other facts it appears by the record that the plaintiffs are the owners of a block of land in the city of Benicia, which is bounded on the east by the navigable waters of the Straits of Carquinez; that by an act of the legislature of this State, approved March…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Reardon v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Blanc v. KlumpkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Schulte v. North Pacific Transportation Co.California Supreme Court · 1875
3Cited by14 opinions
- Colberg, Inc. v. State of California Ex Rel. Dept. Pub. Wks.California Supreme Court · 1967
- McCloskey v. Pacific Coast Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1908
- San Francisco Savings Union v. R. G. R. Petroleum & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
- Hitch v. ScholleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- City of Oakland v. ButeauCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.