# People v. California Fish Co.

> California Supreme Court · December 20, 1913 · 166 Cal. 576

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3302071

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Upon Information of U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, Respondent, v. CALIFORNIA FISH COMPANY, CRESCENT WHARF AND WAREHOUSE COMPANY, and SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LUMBER COMPANY, Appellants
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 20, 1913
- **Citations:** 166 Cal. 576; 138 P. 79; 1913 Cal. LEXIS 368
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Beatty
- **Judges:** Shaw, Beatty
- **Cited by:** 105 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3302071

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a grantee of submerged lands gains “naked title,” subject to the “public easement” in the waters above
- holding that private grantees of public trust land take title subject to the public right of navigation

## Opinion text

BEATTY, C. J., concurring.
I concur in the judgment and generally in what is said in the opinion of Justice Shaw so far as it relates to the questions presented by this particular ease—a case which hinges upon the proposition that the patent in question was absolutely void
ab initio,
'and under which there was no adverse possession. Such a case does not call for any extended discussion of the effect of a valid conveyance of tide lands, as to the interest or estate granted or the reserved rights of the public. As to these matters I prefer to express my views in one of the eases in which the patent cannot be held to have been void, and in which it will be necessary to define the interest acquired by the patentee and the rights reserved to the state. By this I do not mean to intimate that I find myself very widely at variance with the present opinion, but only that I think, that in a few particulars' it requires some qualification.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3302071. Public record. Not legal advice.