1. Upon the admission of California into the Union upon equal
footing with the original states, absolute property in, and
dominion and sovereignty over, all soils under the tidewaters
within her limits passed to the state, with the consequent right to
dispose of the title to any part of said soils in such manner as
she might deem proper, subject only to the paramount right of
navigation over the waters, so far as such navigation might be
required by the necessities of commerce with foreign nations or
among the several states, the regulation of which was vested in the
general government.
2. The Legislature of California, on the 26th of March, 1851, at
its first session after the admission of the state into the Union,
passed an act granting to the City of San Francisco for the term of
ninety-nine years the use and occupation of portions of the lands
covered by the tidewaters of the Bay of San Francisco in front of
the city, lying within a certain designated line, described
according to a map of the city on record in the recorder's office
of the county, and declared that the line thus designated
Page 85 U. S. 58
should "be and remain a permanent waterfront" of the city. It
also provided that the authorities of the city should keep the
space beyond the line, to the distance of five hundred yards,
"clear and free from all obstructions whatsoever," and reserved to
the state the right to regulate the construction of wharves and
other improvements, so that they should not interfere with the
shipping and commercial interests of the bay and harbor. A
subsequent Act of the legislature passed on the 1st of May, 1851,
authorized the City of San Francisco to construct wharves at the
end of all the streets commencing with the bay, the wharves to be
made by extending the streets into the bay for a distance not
exceeding two hundred yards beyond the line established as the
permanent waterfront of the city, and provided that the space
between the wharves, when extended, should remain free from
obstructions and be used as public slips for the accommodation and
benefit of the general commerce of the city and state. After the
passage of these acts the predecessors of the complainant acquired
the title of the city, under the grant of the state
above-mentioned, to lots lying along the line of the said
waterfront, and erected a wharf in front of the lots into the
bay.
Held:
1st. That the complainant took whatever interest he obtained in
subordination to the control by the city over the space immediately
beyond the line of the waterfront and the right of the state to
regulate the construction of wharves and other improvements, and
that he was not a riparian proprietor, having a right to wharf out
into the bay.
2d. That the erection of the wharf was an interference with the
rightful control of the city over the space occupied by it, and an
encroachment upon the soil of the state which she could remove at
pleasure. Having the power of removal, the state could, without
regard to the existence of the wharf, authorize improvements in the
harbor, by the construction of which the use of the wharf would
necessarily be destroyed.
3. The statute of limitations of California declares that the
people of the state will not sue any person for or in respect of
any real property, or the issues or profits thereof, by reason of
the right or title of the people to the same, unless
lst. Such right or title shall have accrued within ten years
before any action or other proceeding for the same shall be
commenced; or unless,
2d. The people, or those from whom they claim, shall have
received the rents or profits of such real property, or some part
thereof, within the space of ten years:
4. The predecessors of the complainant in 1854 erected a wharf,
projecting it into the Bay of San Francisco, and in 1867
obstructions to its use were made, for which the present suit was
brought, the complainant contending among other things that he had
acquired a title to the wharf by operation of the above statute.
Before ten years had elapsed after the erection of the wharf the
legislature passed an act creating a board of harbor commissioners,
and directing them to take possession of and hold the waterfront to
the distance of six hundred feet from the established
Page 85 U. S. 59
front line above-mentioned, with the improvements, rights,
privileges, franchises, easements, and appurtenances, and to
institute suits for the recovery of wharves and the removal of
obstructions to the harbor, and generally to hold the property for
the construction of wharves, landings, and other improvements
intended for the safety and convenience of shipping.
Held:
1st. That the words in the statute of limitations,
"shall
have accrued," are used in the sense of
"shall have
existed."
2d. That the act creating the board of harbor commissioners
rebutted any presumption against the title of the state from the
lapse of time, and prevented the complainant from acquiring that
title by operation of the statute of limitations.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the District of California, in
which court one Weber filed a bill against the Board of State
Harbor Commissioners of California, to make them abate and remove
certain erections made by them on the waterfront of San Francisco,
which he alleged interfered with a wharf rightfully put there by
him. The case was thus:
The State of California was admitted into the Union on the 9th
of September, 1850. At the first session of its legislature
afterwards, namely, on the 26th of March, 1851, an act was passed
entitled "An act to provide for the disposition of certain property
of the State of California," which granted to the City of San
Francisco the use and occupation, for ninety-nine years, of certain
lands lying in front of the city covered by the tidewaters of the
Bay of San Francisco. This act is generally designated in
California as "The Beach and Water Lot Act of 1851." It describes
the outer boundary line of the lands according to the survey of the
city, and a map or plat of the same on record in the office of the
recorder of the County of San Francisco, and in its fourth section
declares that this line:
"Shall be and remain a permanent waterfront of said city, the
authorities of which shall keep clear and free from all
obstructions whatever the space beyond said line to the distance of
five hundred yards therefrom."
And the sixth section provides that:
"Nothing in the act shall be construed as a surrender by the
Page 85 U. S. 60
state of its right to regulate the construction of wharves or
other improvements, so that they shall not interfere with the
shipping and commercial interests of the bay and harbor of San
Francisco."
The permanent waterfront thus established is in many places at a
great distance from the line of the shore of the bay as that
existed at the time California was admitted into the Union. Ships
of the largest size then floated at the lowest tide at many points
along this line. Such was the case at the point where the wharf of
the complainant hereafter mentioned was constructed.
The act above-named was followed, on the 1st of May, 1851, by
another act, as follows:
"SECTION 1. The City of San Francisco is hereby authorized and
empowered to construct wharves at the end of all the streets,
commencing with the Bay of San Francisco, the wharves to be made by
the extension of said streets into the bay, in their present
direction, not exceeding two hundred yards beyond the present
outside line of the beach and water lots, and the city is
authorized to prescribe the rates of wharfage that shall be
collected on said wharves, when constructed. The space between said
wharves, when they are extended, which is situated outside of the
outer line of beach and water lot property, as defined by the
legislature, shall remain free from obstructions and be used as
public slips for the accommodation and benefit of the general
commerce of the city and state."
In 1853, the predecessors of the complainant acquired the title
of the city to certain lots lying along its waterfront, and being
about one hundred and twenty feet in extent. In 1854, they built a
platform along and adjoining this front the whole length of the
lots, and then constructed a wharf projecting from the center of
the platform into the bay, eighty-four feet long and forty feet
wide, leaving a space on each side for the approach and dockage of
vessels. From that time until the interference by the defendants,
in 1867, the then owners and their successors continued in the
uninterrupted possession of the wharf and collected tolls and
wharfage for its use.
Page 85 U. S. 61
On the 24th of April, 1863, the Legislature of California passed
an act entitled "An act to provide for the improvement and
protection of the wharves, docks, and waterfront, in the City and
County of San Francisco." It created a board of state harbor
commissioners, and by its second section required that they
should
"Take possession of and hold all that portion of the Bay of San
Francisco lying along the waterfront of said City and County of San
Francisco, and adjacent thereto, to the distance of six hundred
feet into the waters of said bay, from the line of the waterfront,
as defined by an act of the legislature, approved March 26, 1851,
together with all the improvements, rights, privileges, franchises,
easements, and appurtenances connected therewith, or in anywise
appertaining thereto, excepting such portions of said waterfront as
may be held by parties under valid leases; and the commissioners
shall also take possession and have control of any and all such
portions of said waterfront, with the improvements, rights,
privileges, franchises, easements, and appurtenances, as are held
under valid leases, as soon as said leases shall respectively
expire and become void."
They were also
"Authorized and empowered to institute actions at law or in
equity for the possession of any wharf or wharves, or other rights,
privileges, franchises &c., named in this section, or for the
recovery of the tolls, dockage, rents, and wharfage thereof; also,
for the removal of obstructions, and abatement of any and all
nuisances on the waterfront mentioned in this act, and to prosecute
the same to final judgment."
The third section proceeded:
"SECTION 3. The commissioners shall have and hold possession and
control of the said waterfront, with the improvements, rights,
privileges, franchises, easements, and appurtenances connected
therewith, or in anywise appertaining thereto, for the following
purposes and uses:"
"
First. To keep in good repair all the sea walls,
embankments, wharves, piers, landings, and thoroughfares, for the
accommodation and benefit of commerce. "
Page 85 U. S. 62
"
Second. To dredge such number of the docks as the
commerce of the harbor may require, to a depth that will admit of
the easy ingress and egress of the vessels which load and unload at
said wharves and piers."
"
Third. To construct such new wharves, piers, landings,
and thoroughfares, at the foot of the streets, as the wants of
commerce may require."
"
Fourth. To construct all works necessary for the
protection of wharves, piers, docks, landings, and thoroughfares,
and for the safety and convenience of shipping."
"
Fifth. To provide for the construction, out of the
surplus funds growing out of the revenues arising from said
wharves, such sea wall or other structure along the waterfront of
said City and County of San Francisco, as shall, upon accurate
surveys made for that purpose, be found to be necessary for the
protection of the harbor and waterfront of said city and county. .
."
"
Sixth. To collect such rents, tolls, wharfage,
craneage, and dockage, as may, from time to time, be fixed under
the authority of this act, and to disburse and dispose of the
revenues arising therefrom as in this act provided."
The twentieth section provided that no person or company should,
after the commissioners were qualified, "collect any tolls,
wharfage, and dockage, upon any portion of the waterfront of the
City and County of San Francisco," nor "land or ship any goods,
wares, or merchandise, or other thing, upon or from any portion of
the said waterfront of said City and County of San Francisco,
unless authorized so to do by the said commissioners, excepting
such persons or companies as might hold possession of some portion
of the property described in this act by valid leases." And it
provided that any person violating or offending against the
prohibition should be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon
conviction thereof be punished by fine or imprisonment.
The defendants, the harbor commissioners, in 1867 proceeded,
under this act, and an act amendatory of and supplementary to it,
passed on the 6th of March, 1864, to make improvements in the
harbor of San Francisco, intended for its protection and the
convenience of shipping, and in the
Page 85 U. S. 63
execution of their works caused piling to be had, and capping
and planking on both sides of the complainant's wharf, so as to
prevent any approach to it by vessels. To obtain a decree of the
court that the erections thus caused were a nuisance, and to compel
the defendants to abate and remove them, the complainants filed the
present bill, asserting title to the land upon which the wharf was
constructed, and alleging that if any adverse claim to it was made,
it was barred under the statute of limitations of the state.
The statute of limitations provides that:
"The people of the state will not sue any person for, or in
respect of, any real property, or the issues or profits thereof, by
reason of the right or title of the people to the same,
unless:"
"
First. Such right or title shall have accrued within
ten years before any action or other proceeding for the same shall
be commenced, or unless,"
"
Second. The people, or those from whom they claim,
shall have received the rents or profits of such real property, or
some part thereof, within the space of ten years."
The court below dismissed the bill, and from the decree the
complainant appealed to this Court.
Page 85 U. S. 64
MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the Court.
It is unnecessary for the disposition of this case to question
the doctrine that a riparian proprietor, whose land is bounded by a
navigable stream has the right of access to the navigable part of
the stream in front of his land, and to
Page 85 U. S. 65
construct a wharf or pier projecting into the stream, for his
own use, or the use of others, subject to such general rules and
regulations as the legislature may prescribe for the protection of
the public, as was held in
Yates v. Milwaukee. [
Footnote 1] On the contrary, we
recognize the correctness of the doctrine as stated and affirmed in
that case. Nor is it necessary to controvert the proposition that
in several of the states, by general legislation or immemorial
usage, the proprietor, whose land is bounded by the shore of the
sea, or of an arm of the sea, possesses a similar right to erect a
wharf or pier in front of his land, extending into the waters to
the point where they are navigable. In the absence of such
legislation or usage, however, the common law rule would govern the
rights of the proprietor, at least in those states where the common
law obtains. By that law the title to the shore of the sea, and of
the arms of the sea, and in the soils under tidewaters is, in
England, in the King, and, in this country, in the state. Any
erection thereon without license is, therefore, deemed an
encroachment upon the property of the sovereign, or, as it is
termed in the language of the law, a
purpresture, which he
may remove at pleasure, whether it tend to obstruct navigation or
otherwise. [
Footnote 2]
But in this case, no inquiry as to the rights of a riparian
proprietor, by either the common law or local usage or regulation,
is needed. The complainant is not the proprietor of any land
bordering on the
shore of the sea, in any proper sense of
that term. His land is situated nearly half a mile from what was
the shore of the Bay of San Francisco, at the time California was
admitted into the Union, and over it the water at the lowest tide
then flowed at a depth sufficient to float vessels of ordinary
size. Although the title to the soil under the tidewaters of the
bay was acquired by the United States by cession from Mexico,
equally with the title to the upland, they held it only in trust
for the future state. Upon the admission of California into the
Union upon equal footing with the original states, absolute
property in, and dominion
Page 85 U. S. 66
and sovereignty over, all soils under the tidewaters within her
limits passed to the state, with the consequent right to dispose of
the title to any part of said soils in such manner as she might
deem proper, subject only to the paramount right of navigation over
the waters, so far as such navigation might be required by the
necessities of commerce with foreign nations or among the several
states, the regulation of which was vested in the general
government. [
Footnote 3]
Acting upon the rights thus acquired, the legislature of the
state, on the 26th of March, 1851, at its first session after the
admission, passed an act disposing of portions of the lands covered
by the tidewaters of the bay, in front of the City of San
Francisco. That act is generally known in the state as the Beach
and Water Lot Act. [
Footnote 4]
It granted to the city, for the term of ninety-nine years, the use
and occupation of lands thus covered, with some specified
exceptions, lying within a certain designated line, described
according to a map of the city on record in the recorder's office
of the county, and declared that the line thus designated should
"be and remain a permanent waterfront" of the city. It also
provided that the authorities of the city should keep the space
beyond the line to the distance of five hundred yards, "clear and
free from all obstructions whatsoever," and reserved to the state
the right to regulate the construction of wharves and other
improvements, so that they should not interfere with the shipping
and commercial interests of the bay and harbor.
A subsequent act of the legislature, passed on the 1st of May,
1851, authorized the City of San Francisco to construct wharves at
the end of all the streets commencing with the bay, the wharves to
be made by extending the streets into the bay for a distance not
exceeding two hundred yards beyond the outside line of the beach
and water lots, the line established as the permanent waterfront of
the city and
Page 85 U. S. 67
provided that the space between the wharves, when extended,
should remain free from obstructions, and be used as public slips
for the accommodation and benefit of the general commerce of the
city and state.
It was after the passage of these acts that the predecessors of
the complainant acquired all the title to the lots which he holds,
and they took whatever interest they obtained in subordination to
the control by the city over the space immediately beyond the line
of the waterfront, and the right of the state to regulate the
construction of wharves and other improvements.
There is therefore no just foundation for the claim by the
complainant as a riparian proprietor of a right to wharf out into
the bay in front of his land. He holds, as his predecessors took
the premises, freed from any such appendant right. The erection of
his wharf, the obstruction to the use of which is the cause of the
present suit, was therefore not only an interference with the
rightful control of the city over the space occupied by it, but was
an encroachment upon the soil of the state which she could remove
at pleasure. Having the power of removal she could, without regard
to the existence of the wharf, authorize improvements in the
harbor, by the construction of which the use of the wharf would
necessarily be destroyed.
But it is contended by the complainant that he had acquired by
prescription a perfect title to the wharf when the present suit was
commenced -- in other words, that he or his grantors had been in
the uninterrupted possession of the wharf for a period which barred
the right of the state under her statute of limitations. The wharf
was constructed in 1854; the defendants commenced the piling,
capping, and planking, which constitute the obstruction complained
of, in 1867; and the statute of limitations of the state declares
that,
"The people of the state will not sue any person for, or in
respect of, any real property, or the issues or profits thereof, by
reason of the right or title of the people to the same,
unless:"
"First, such right or title shall have accrued within ten
Page 85 U. S. 68
years before any action or other proceeding for the same shall
be commenced; or unless,"
"Second, the people, or those from whom they claim, shall have
received the rents or profits of such real property, or some part
thereof, within the space of ten years."
Upon the supposed operation of this statute the pretension of
the complainant rests.
In answer to this pretension, it is contended with much force
that the statute only applies to lands which the state holds, as
private proprietor, for sale or other disposition, and in respect
to which the title may be lost by adverse possession, as defined in
the same statute, and not to lands which she holds as sovereign in
trust for the public. To constitute sufficient adverse possession
under the statute to bar the owner, when the claim of title is not
founded upon a written instrument, the land must have been
protected by a substantial enclosure, or been usually cultivated or
improved, conditions inapplicable to the possession of land covered
by tidewater, or of a wharf constructed thereon.
Where lands are held by the state simply for sale or other
disposition, and not as sovereign in trust for the public, there is
some reason in requiring the assertion of her rights within a
limited period, when any portion of such lands is intruded upon, or
occupied without her permission, and the policy of the statute
would be carried out by restricting its application to such
cases.
The terms, "shall have accrued," are used in the sense of "shall
have existed" within the period designated. The title of the state
to soils under the tidewaters of the bay accrued on her admission
into the Union twenty-three years ago, but yet it would not be
pretended that the state could not sue for any portion of such
soils upon which a party had encroached, because ten years had
elapsed since such admission. A literal construction of the terms
used would denude the state of nearly the whole of her property. It
would prevent her from suing an intruder of yesterday upon a title
of twenty years.
But assuming that the statute applies to lands held by the
Page 85 U. S. 69
state, as sovereign, in trust for public purposes equally as to
other lands, before the ten years prescribed had elapsed after the
erection of the wharf, namely, in April, 1863, the legislature
passed an act creating the Board of State Harbor Commissioners, the
defendants in this suit, and provided that the commissioners should
take possession of and hold all that portion of the bay lying along
the waterfront of the City and County of San Francisco, and
adjacent thereto, to the distance of six hundred feet into the
waters of the bay, from the line of the waterfront, together with
all the improvements, rights, privileges, franchises, easements,
and appurtenances connected therewith or appertaining thereto,
except such portions of the waterfront as were held by parties
under valid leases, and of those portions when the leases expired.
That act also authorized the commissioners to institute suits for
the possession of any wharf or wharves, and other rights and
privileges, for the recovery of tolls, dockage, and wharfage, and
for the removal of obstructions, and the abatement of nuisances on
the waterfront, and to prosecute the suits to judgment; and
declared that the possession and control of the waterfront, with
its improvements, rights, privileges, franchises, easements, and
appurtenances, were vested in the commissioners for certain
specified purposes, all of which related to the protection of the
harbor, the construction of wharves, landings, and other
improvements intended for the safety and convenience of shipping
and consequent promotion of commerce. The act also prohibited any
subsequent collection of tolls, wharfage, and dockage by any person
or company, on any part of the waterfront, without authority of the
commissioners, and made a violation of the prohibition a public
offense, punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.
There is in these provisions a most emphatic declaration on the
part of the legislature, that the state did not intend to abandon
her control over the waterfront of the city, or to allow by silence
any rights therein, which she held as sovereign in trust for the
public, to pass into private ownership.
Page 85 U. S. 70
Statutes of limitation, as observed in a recent case in this
Court, [
Footnote 5]
"are founded upon the general experience of mankind, that claims
which are valid are not usually allowed to remain neglected. The
lapse of years without any attempt to enforce a demand, creates,
therefore, a presumption against its original validity, or that it
has ceased to subsist. This presumption is made by these statutes a
positive bar; and they thus become statutes of repose, protecting
parties from the prosecution of stale claims, when by loss of
evidence from the death of some witnesses and the imperfect
recollection of others, or the destruction of documents, it might
be impossible to establish the truth."
Although this language was used with reference to a demand upon
a policy of insurance, it applies equally to claims for property in
the possession of others. They are not generally held for long
periods without some attempt at their enforcement. When, therefore,
no claim to property is made for years against the possessor, the
presumption arises that his possession is founded in right, and by
statute the presumption being conclusive, the possessor is said to
have acquired title by operation of the statute or by prescription.
The presumption to which the statute gives this effect extends,
however, only against individual claimants; their personal interest
is supposed to be sufficient to induce vigilance in the enforcement
of their claims. It does not extend against the state, which acts
through numerous agents, having no such incentive to prosecute her
claims. The rule, therefore, with respect to her rights is that
they are not lost or impaired by the negligence of her officers, a
rule which has been found by experience essential to the
preservation of the interests and property of the public. Statutes
of limitation are not for this reason held to embrace the state,
unless she is expressly designated, or necessarily included by the
nature of the mischiefs to be remedied.
The statute of California is exceptional in this particular. It
declares that the state will not sue for or in respect to
Page 85 U. S. 71
real property unless her title or right has existed within a
prescribed time, or rents or profits have been received within that
period. She thus allows a presumption to arise in favor of any
occupant of her lands, and that presumption to become absolute,
that she possesses no title or interest therein, if within that
period no assertion of her title or interest is made. But this
presumption is rebutted when such assertion is made, and it may be
made by her as well by legislative act as by judicial
proceeding.
In the present case, the act creating the harbor commissioners
and authorizing them to take possession and improve the waterfront,
was a public act relating to a matter of public concern, of which
the complainant and all others were bound to take notice. Hardly
anything, which we can readily conceive of, would be more
expressive of the intention of the legislature that the state
should conserve her title and interest in the whole waterfront of
the city. In our judgment, it prevented the complainant from
acquiring the title of the state by operation of the statute of
limitations, as effectually as if that statute had not been in
existence.
Decree affirmed.
[
Footnote 1]
77 U. S. 10 Wall.
497.
[
Footnote 2]
Angell on Tidewaters 198, 199.
[
Footnote 3]
Pollard's Lessee v.
Hagan, 3 How. 212;
Mumford v.
Wardwell, 6 Wall. 436.
[
Footnote 4]
The act is entitled "An act to provide for the disposition of
certain property of the State of California." Laws of California
for 1851, p. 307.
[
Footnote 5]
Riddlesbarger v. Hartford
Insurance Company, 7 Wall. 390.
