gno.law

Guy v. Hermance

California Supreme Court · · 1855-07-01 · Published · 5 Cal. 73

ABEL GUY, and others v. L. HERMANCE, and others

Area
civil
Panel
Solomon Heydenfeldt (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Heydenfeldt

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., concurred.

1. The right of the State to lands under water where the tide ebbs and flows, is founded upon her sovereign control over the easement, or right of navigation. Where, therefore, the easement is destroyed, the right of the State ceases, except to prosecute for perpresture, and have the easement restored.

2. The Legislature cannot exercise judicial functions, and therefore cannot except one case, or one party, from the operation of a. general rule of law, either as to right or remedy. That portion therefore of the Act of May, 1853, entitled, “ An Act to provide for the sale of the interest of the State of California in the property within the water *75line,” &e., which prescribes that no injunction shall be issued against the Commissioners is invalid.

3. The right of a party to have his title to land protected from a sale which might create a cloud upon it, was upheld by this Court in the cases of Smith v. Morse, 2 Cal. 524. Shattuck v. Carson, 2 Cal. 588 Judgment affirmed.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by