City of San Francisco v. Ellis

California Supreme Court July 1, 1879

City of San Francisco v. Ellis, 54 Cal. 72 (Cal. 1879)

Opinion of the Court

By the Court:

It is not necessary to decide whether the lands described in the complaint were withdrawn from disposition (by the Board of Tide Land Commissioners) by the first section of the Act of April 1st, 1872, (Stats. 1871-2, p. 926) or whether the plaintiff acquired an easement to drain into the “ open canal ” provided for in this act. Nor is it necessary to determine what *74rights, if any, the defendants have acquired in the lands. The only right of plaintiff alleged is set forth in the complaint as follows:

“ Plaintiff further states, according to information and belief, that ever since the 27th day of March, A. D. 1874, the plaintiff has been and is seized in fee simple and the owner of all those certain lots, pieces, or parcels of land situate, lying, and being within the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, and respectively bounded and described as follows; ” * *

This averment was not sustained by the evidence. We agree with the Court below that the Act of March 27th, 1874, (Stats. 1873-4, p. 711) did not operate a grant of the premises to plaintiff.

Judgment and order affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.

Reference

Full Case Name: CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO v. ELLIS
Cited By: 7 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Sab Francisco—Statute, Construction of—Variance.—The Act of March 27th, 1874, (Stats. 1873-4, p. 711,) authorizing and requiring the Board of Supervisors of the plaintiff to sell at public auction all of Channel Street and Mission Creek, except so much thereof as might be required for a street and sewer, and providing that the deed of the mayor to the purchaser of any lot, should vest the title in such purchaser, did not operate as a grant to the plaintiff. Same—Quiet Title, Action to.—In an action hy the plaintiff to quiet title to a portion of the said land, against one claiming under a deed, subsequent to the act, from the Board of Tide Land Commissioners—the complaint alleging that the plaintiff was seized of the land: Held, that the action could not he maintained, for want of title in the plaintiff, and that it was, therefore, unnecessary to examine the title of defendant.