Heckman v. Swett
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Humboldt County. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
In addition to the facts presented upon the former appeal in this case (99 Cal. 303), the court has now found that the change in the channel of Eel river left no portion of the lands included in surveys 36 and 42 on the north side of the river; and that at low tide the bed of the old channel is dry in places between the island and the plaintiff’s land. It was *280held upon the former appeal that the land of the defendants is bounded by the high-water mark on the south side of the river, and that the southerly line of the plaintiff’s land is the high-water mark on the north side of the river;…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Moore v. Clear Lake Water WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Commonwealth v. VincentMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Heckman v. SwettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- People v. DoxtaterNew York Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. LeavittSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1909
- Monroe v. WithycombeOregon Supreme Court · 1917
- State Ex Rel. Bacich v. HuseWashington Supreme Court · 1936