San Pedro, L.A. & Salt Lake R.R. v. Hamilton
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Grant Jackson, and Keefer & Bowers, for Appellants. John W. Schenck, City Attorney of Los Angeles, Anderson & Anderson, and Leslie R Hewitt, Amici Curirn, also for Appellants. A'. S. Halstead, Miner P. Goodrich, W. R. Kelly, and Wilfred M. Peek, for Respondent. W. C. Petchner, Benj. E. Page, and H. M. Barston, Amici Cu-rice, also for Respondent.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
The above entitled eases involve a consideration of the same legal questions. The former case is an action to quiet title, the latter an action in ejectment, both between the same parties.
The facts found by the court, over which there is no controversy, may be briefly stated. In 1903 the government of the United States was engaged in the improvement of the harbor of San Pedro. The work contemplated a deepening of the “inner harbor” (an estuary or arm of the sea), the rectification of the inner harbor lines, the construction of jetties delimiting those lines, and to the seaward the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Oakland Paving Co. v. HiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Baird v. MonroeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Read v. PlattsmouthSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- State v. SquiresSupreme Court of Iowa · 1868
- People Ex Rel. State Bd. of Harbor Comm'rs v. KerberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Boone v. KingsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Kaiser v. HopkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Golden Gate Bridge & Highway District v. FeltCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Turlock Irrigation Dist. v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Hammond v. McDonaldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.