Elinor E. Petersen v. Alameda West Lagoon Home Owners' Association

Good Law
382 F.2d 555·1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5180
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 6, 196721438California542 words

Opinion

Opinion

This appeal follows the District Court’s dismissal, for want of jurisdiction, of an action which appellant had there filed.

The appellant’s amended complaint was .framed in two parts, the first asserting the ownership, as against appellees, of certain California real property, and the second alleging the tortious interference by appellees with the appellant’s alleged right to the use of the property. The basis of appellant’s claim of title may be seen in reports of her previous engagements in similar legal contests. This court has rejected her former position that the boundary of land to which she claims title extends to “the deepest waters of the Bay of San Francisco.” Petersen v. United States, 327 F.2d 219 (9th Cir. 1964). We held that the extent of title was to be determined, not by an 1820 grant from the King of Spain to appellant’s original predecessor, but by interpretation of a patent ultimately issued by the United States in 1874. In a subsequent California state proceeding, it was held that since appellant had no interest in certain tidelands, she acquired no interest in the fill of such tidelands by artificial means. South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen, 230 Cal.App.2d 628

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.