19 Cal. 411 | Cal. | 1861
Cope, J. concurring.
We take the same view of the main question in this case as that taken by the referee and the District Court.
The question is, whether the street on which it is claimed the defendant intruded—namely, East street, in the city of San Francisco—was legally established to the water line prior to the passing of the city title to the defendant or his predecessor. It is not
It follows that, as the ground occupied by the defendant belonged to the city, and the defendant succeeded to the city title before any acts of the city authorities were taken to turn it into a street, the acts are without effect upon the defendant, since the proper proceedings were not taken to condemn it or subject it to the public use.
■ There is nothing in the point that, as East street had been dedicated on the old plan of the city, this was sufficient to extend the street as a public highway beyond its first limits and to the bay.
Judgment affirmed.