Heckman v. Swett
Citations
- 99 Cal. 303
- 4 Cal. Unrep. 312
- 33 P. 1099
- 1893 Cal. LEXIS 658
Syllabus
<p>State Patent to Swamp Land—Boundary upon Bank of Navigable Riveb— Change by Action of Water__Where a patent to swamp land, issued after the passage of the act of April 21, 1858, relating to such lands, describes the land conveyed as swamp land granted to the state by the act of Congress of September 28, 1850, and as bounded on the north by the left or southern hank of Eel river, a navigable stream, the patent conveys the land to high-water mark on the southerly bank of the river as it existed at the date of the patent, or as thereafter changed by the action of the water.</p> <p>Id. — Survey not Oontbolling.—The fact that the survey of the land started at a point on a section or quarter-section line back from the river, and gives the courses and distances of all the lines, including the meander lines along navigable sloughs and the bank of the river, does not control the call of the patent for the south bank of the stream.</p> <p>Id.—Change of Channel of Riveb—Title to Island.—Where the channel of the river was changed by a sudden freshet subsequent to the survey, but prior to the issuance of the patent, resulting in the formation of an island out of part of the land which formerly bordered on the southern bank of the stream, the island so formed belongs to the state, and does not pass under the patent which calls for a boundary on such bank.</p> <p>In.—Rights of Patentees to Fishery—Use of Island.—Where the river in making the new channel left the old channel between high- and low-water mark, low-water mark on the north side of the river being on the south side of the island formed by the new channel, where there was a bar or grade suitable for landing nets, while the bank on the south side of the new channel was abrupt and could not be used for that purpose, the owner of a patent issued subsequently to the change in the channel, to swamp land bordering on the north hank of the river at high-water mark, is entitled to the exclusive right to use the entire width o
Judges: Haynes
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- ACL Technologies, Inc. v. Northbrook Property & Casualty InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1993-08-24· cited 93×
- State v. MallorySupreme Court of Arkansas· 1904-12-03· cited 29×
- United States v. StewartNinth Circuit· 1941-06-30· cited 8×
- Bankline Oil Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueNinth Circuit· 1937-06-07· cited 4×
- Heckman v. SwettCalifornia Supreme Court· 1895-05-24· cited 3×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Other cases named Heckman v. Swett
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.