Citations
- 139 Cal. 370
Full opinion text
VAN DYKE, J.
A rehearing was granted in these cases on the ground, as claimed by the appellants in their petition for a rehearing, that some portion of the land involved in the controversy lies outside of the pueblo patent line. Both cases relate to the same lands, and were submitted on the same briefs ancjl arguments, No. 2021 being an action to quiet title, and the cither an action in ejectment.
After further argument and a re-examination of the eases, we are satisfied the contention of appellants in their petition on this point cannot be sustained. The plaintiffs and appellants deraign title under' two certain .deeds from the state tide-land commissioners to George W. Ellis, bearing date November 24, 1875. The first deed offered by plaintiffs, and admitted in evidence, covers the salt marsh and tide-land at and near the mouth of Mission Creek. The other deed embraces land higher up the creek, and of course a considerable distance within the pueblo line, and it will be necessary, therefore, to notice only the first deed. The description in this deed of the two tracts at the mouth of Mission Creek on or near the bay is as follows: “Beginning at the intersection of the northerly line of Eighth Street'with the easterly line of Berry Street, thence south 45 degrees E. along the northerly line of Eighth Street, ninety-nine (99) feet and ten (10) inches to the easterly line (if extended) of De Haro Street, thence N.4| degrees W.nineteen (19) feet and ten (10) inches to the southerly line (if extended) of Alameda Street, thence at right angles N. 85^ degrees E. two hundred (200) feet to the westerly line (if extended) of Carolina Street; thence at right angles S. 4£ degrees E. 33 feet and five (5) inches to the westerly line of Channel Street ninety-six (96) feet and (1|) one and a half inches to the shore line of Mission Bay at ordinary high tide, thence along said shore line N. 29£ degrees W. one hundred and seventy-two (172) feet an