Los Angeles Farming & Milling Co. v. City of Los Angeles
Citations
- 217 U.S. 217
- 30 S. Ct. 452
- 54 L. Ed. 736
- 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1956
Syllabus
<p>In this case both parties claim under Spanish or Mexican titles, confirmed by proceedings under the act of March 3, 1851, c. 41, 9 Stat.-631. The Federal rights alleged by plaintiff in error to have been violated by the decision of the state court, so far as concerns this act, relate to the extent of the right and ownership of the parties in the use of the Los Angeles River.' Plaintiff in error contended that by its grant it became the owner of ripárian rights without limitations by any right of the city of Los Angeles to use the water of the river, and that the city by failing to present its claim for the use of such water to the commission under the act of 1851 is foreclosed from row asserting them. The state court held that the city of Los Angeles had the exclusive right to the water of the Los Angeles ■River from its source to the most southern part of the city. In dismissing a writ of error to review the judgment of the state court held that:</p> <p>The act of 1851 was a confirmatory act and not one granting titles; that by its terms it did not originate titles nor make the patents to be issued in pursuance of decisions of the commission conclusive except upon the United States.</p> <p>The extent of riparian rights belonging to pueblos or persons receiving patents of the United States in pursuance of the decisions of the commission under- the act of March 3, 1851, are matters of local or general law.</p> <p>The decision of the state court in this case was put upon the effect of the old Spanish or Mexican law as to the rights of the original pueblo of Los Angeles succeeded to by the present city and such rights were merely confirmed and not originated by proceedings under acts of Congress; and therefore, as no rights existing under an authority of the United States were deified, this court has no jurisdiction to review the judgment under § 709, Rev. Stat.</p> <p>Writ of error to review 152 California, 645', dismissed.</p>
Judges: Day
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.