Griffing v. Gibb

Appeal from the decree of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California.

Frederick Griffing filed his bill in the District Court against Daniel Gibb and Donald Fraser, averring that he was the owner of two lots in San Francisco which originally fronted on the natural shore of the bay with bold deep water in front; that he bought this property with a view to its water front; that he built ware houses and a wharf on it to which ships of the largest size could come; that when he commenced his improvements there was no sign of any streets near him which interfered with his access to the water, the lines of Filbert and Battery streets being defined only on the City maps; that the defendants are engaged in filling up a certain part of the bay in a way which will prevent ships from coming to his ware-house-the part to be thus filled up being a lot of one hundred varas square, covered by navigable tide-water, and situate between, and forming, the northeast corner of Filbert and Battery streets as defined on the City map. The plaintiff asserts that these acts of the defendants are in violation of his rights, injurious to the public, and contrary to the Constitution and Laws of the United States and of the State of California, and therefore prays for a perpetual injunction.

To this bill the defendants demur; the Court sustained the demurrer, and the plaintiff having failed to amend the bill within the time limited by the rule of Court, a final decree was passed, dismissing the bill. Thereupon the plaintiff took an appeal to this Court.

Mr. Hepburn and Mr. Wilkins, of California, for the appellant, insisted that the bill was erroneously dismissed. The plaintiff, on the facts averred in the bill and admitted in the demurrer, was entitled to relief. He could only be defeated by proof, that Battery and Filbert streets were legally extended by the proper authorities. The bill avers that they were not legally or officially laid out. The right of the defendants to do the thing complained of, so far from being admitted in the bill, is expressly averred to be wrongful.

Mr. Latham, of California, and Mr. Black, of Pennsylvania, for the appellee, maintained the correctness of the decree on the grounds: that,

1. The bill indicates distinctly the locus in quo of the acts complained of as being on a lot between certain streets defined on the City map.

2. This Court, as well as the District Court, is bound to notice, judicially, the public laws of a State and the acts of public corporations done in pursuance of them.

3. The laws of California and the acts of the City Government are here produced, and show that the place, which the defendants are filling up, is a part of the City covered by lots and streets, and not public waters of the bay.

4. The laws of California which relate to this subject are not unconstitutional.

5. The averment that the act of the defendants was wrongful is not to be taken as admitted by the demurrer. The demurrer admits the facts set forth in the bill, but not the legal conclusions.

Mr. Justice WAYNE.