5 F.Supp. 281 (S.D.Cal. 1933), City of Los Angeles v. Borax Consol. Limited
|Citation:||5 F.Supp. 281|
|Party Name:||CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. BORAX CONSOLIDATED LIMITED et al.|
|Case Date:||November 20, 1933|
|Court:||United States District Courts, 9th Circuit, Southern District of California|
Newlin & Ashburn, of Los Angeles, Cal. (Allen W. Ashburn, of Los Angeles, Cal, of counsel), for Borax Consolidated Limited.
Loren Butts, City Atty., of Los Angeles, Cal., for City of Los Angeles.
COSGRAVE, District Judge.
The city of Los Angeles brings suit against defendants wherein it seeks to quiet title to portions of Mormon Island located in Los Angeles Harbor, claiming the same as tide land. The plaintiff claims title by legislative grant from the state which, on its admission to the Union, was vested with title to all tide lands by virtue of its sovereignty. The island itself comprises some eighteen acres. The central portion is conceded by the plaintiff to be land originally belonging to the public domain, but plaintiff claims that the northerly and southerly portions, respectively, are below the line of high tide and therefore the property of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff introduced evidence from which the conclusion might be drawn that the land in question is below the line of ordinary high-water mark.
The pleadings admit that the entire island was included in a United States patent issued to defendants' predecessor in interest pursuant to a pre-emption entry and was surveyed as public land open to entry; the survey duly filed and proof made of the character of the land and United States patent issued; that all proceedings done and had before the land department were sufficient to vest title in defendants' predecessor in interest, but plaintiff denies the effect of these proceedings on the ground that the land was not part of the public domain.
The question presented therefore is whether or not, these facts being conceded, the validity of the United States Patent can be thus collaterally questioned.
It is conceded that tide lands are the property of the state, not a part of the public domain and may not be disposed of by the
United States. As suggested, a portion of the island is conceded to have been part of the public domain, but the contention of the plaintiff is that and error was made in the survey with the result that portions really tide land were improperly included in the survey of the high land by the land department and no power existed in the United States thus to...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP