APPEALS from a judgment of tbe Superior Court of Ala-meda County and from an order denying a new trial. F. B. Ogden, Judge.

Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.

' Tbe city of Oakland is estopped from bringing this action by its conduct and acquiescence. Municipalities and states may be thus estopped. (State, etc. v. Flint etc. Ry. Co., 89 Mich. 481, 487; State etc. v. Jachson etc. R. R. Co., 69 Fed. Rep. 116; Cohn v. Barnes, 5 Fed. Rep. 326; Hough v. Buchanan, 27 Fed. Rep. 328; Pengra v. Munz, 29 Fed. Rep. 830; Indiana v. Milk, 11 Fed. Rep. 389; United States v. Dalles etc. Road Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 493; Commonwealth v. Andre, 3 Pick. 224; Williamsburg Sav. Bank v. Solon, 138 N. Y. 465; Moran v. Commissioners of Miami County, 2 Black, 722; County of Moultrie v. Savings Bank, 92 U. S. 631; Kneeland v. Gilman, 24 Wis. 39; Commonwealth v. Pejepscut etc., 10 Mass. 155; County of Randolph v. Post, 93 U. S. 502; Zabriskie v. Cleveland etc. R. R. Co., 23 Howl 381; Brookhaven v. Smith, 118 N. Y. 634.) The enforcement of municipal taxes against the Oakland Water Front Company estops the city to question its title. (Fresno v. Fresno etc. Irrigation Co., 98 Cal. 179; Adams County v. Burlington etc. R. R. Co., 39 Iowa, 507, 510; Audubon County v. American Emigrant Co., 40 Iowa, 460; Austin v. Bremer County, 44 Iowa, 155; Simplotv. Dubuque, 49 Iowa, 630; Smith v. Osage, 80 Iowa, 84; State v. Flint etc. Ry. Co., supra; Diamond Coal Co. v. Fisher, 19 Pa. St. 267; Murphy v. Packer, 152 U. S. 398; State v. Milk, 11 Biss, 197; Breaux v. Negrotto, 43 La. Ann. 426; People v. Hagadorn, 104 N. Y. 516.) Oakland is estopped by the judgment of .absolute dismissal of the action of Oakland v. Carpentier, 13 Cal. 540, with no reservation of a right to bring a new action. (Durant v. Essex Co., 7 Wall. 107; Gove v. Lyford, 44 N. H. 525; Foote v. Gibbs, 1 Gray, 412; Thurston v. Thurston, 99 Mass. 39; Bradley v. Bradley, 160 Mass. 258; Ferine v. Dunn, 4 Johns. Ch. 140; Forist v. Bellows, 59 N. H. 229; Knowlton v. Ilanbury, 117 Ill. 471-74; Jenkins v. Johnston, 4 Jones Eq. 151; Curts v. Trustees, 6 J. J. Marsh. 536; Thompson v. Clay, 3 T. B. Mon. 359; 16 Am. Dec. 108; Messinger v. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co., 59 Fed Rep. 416; Alley v. Nott, 111 U. S. 472; Bissell v. Spring Valley Tp., 124 U. S. 225; .Williams v. Hollingsworth, 5 Lea, 358; Goebel v. Iffla, 111 N. Y. 170,177; Gates v. Preston, 41 N. Y. 113; Cochran v. Couper,2 Del. Ch. 27; Parrish v. Ferris, 2 Black, 606; Casev. Beauregard, 101 U. S. 688; Lyonv. Perin etc. Co., 125 U. S. 698.) The city is estopped by the judgment notwithstanding its claim to be a trustee for the public. (San Francisco v. Ilolladay, 76 Cal. 18; San Francisco v. Itsell, 80 Cal. 57; People v. Holladay, 93 Cal. 241; 27 Am. St. Rep. 186; 102 Cal. 661; Los Angeles v. Cohn, 101 Cal. 373-77.) In every case of dismissal not other- , wise provided for by statute, the judgment of dismissal is upon tbe merits. (Practice Act, sec. 149; Merritt v. Campbell, 47 Cal. 542; Phillpotts v. Blasdell, 10 Nev. 19; United States v. Parker, 120 U. S. 95.) Tbe stipulated judgment in favor of tbe Oakland Water Front Company quieting its title against the city of Oakland is a bar to tbe present action, there being no impeachment of it for fraud, collusion, or mistake of fact. (Holmes v. Rogers, 18 Cal. 191; Semple v. Wright, 32 Cal. 659; Merritt v. Campbell, supra; McCreery v. Fuller, 63 Cal. 30; Partridge v. Shepard, 71 Cal. 470; Crossman v. Davis, 79 Cal. 603, 604; Phill-potts v. Blasdell, supra; Thompson v. Maxwell etc. Ry. Co., 95 U. S. 397; Nashville etc. Ry. Co. v. United States, 113 U. S. 261; United States v. Parker, 120 U. S. 95; White v. Crow, 17 Fed. Rep. 98; Derby v. Jacques, 1 Cliff. 425; Armstrong v. Cooper, 11 Ill. 540-42; Flagler v. Crow, 40 Ill. 414; Indiana etc. Ry. Co. v. Bird, 116 Ind. 217; 9 Am. St. Rep. 842; Gifford v. Thorn, 9 N. J. Eq. 702.) A municipal corporation authorized by tbe legislature to compromise a disputed claim or a pending suit concludes itself by such compromise. (People v. Coon, 25 Cal. 635; Hall v. Baker, 74 Wis. 118; Board of Liquidation v. Louisville etc. R. R.. Co., 109 U. S. 221; County of Dakota v. Glidden, 113 U. S. 222; Petersburg v. Mappin, 14 Ill. 193; 56 Am. Dec. 501; Agnew v. Brail, 124 Ill. 312; Grimes v. Hamilton Co., 37 Iowa, 290.) The state had authority to dispose of tide and submerged lands upon the waterfront of the bay and estuary. (Eldridge v. Cowell, 4 Cal. 80; Chapin v. Bourne, 8 Cal. 294; Hyman v. Read, 13 Cal. 444; Holladay v. Frisbie, 15 Cal. 630; Wheeler v. Miller, 16 Cal. 124; Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U. S. 281; Burgess%. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20, 33; Gage v. Pumpelly, 115 U. S. 454; Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S.. 1; Baer v. Moran Bros. Co., 153 U. S. 287; Mann v. Tacoma Land Co., 153 U. S. 273; Brookhaven ¶. Strong, 60 N. Y. 56; Trustees v. Smith, 118 N. Y. 634; Mayor etc. v. Hart, 95 N. Y. 443; Langdon v. Mayor etc., 93 N. Y. 129; Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53; Ramsey v. New York etc. R. R. Co., 114 N Y. 427; Ho-boken v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 124 U. S. 657; Gough v. Bell, 22 N. J. L. 456, 457; People v. New York etc. Co., 68 N. Y. 77, 78; Nichols v. Boston, 98 Mass. 42; 98 Am. Dec. 132; Hinman v. Warren, 6 Or. 410; Parker v. Taylor, 7 Or. 446, 447p Boivlby v. Shively, 22 Or. 416; Lewis v. Portland, 25 Or. 133; 42 Am. .St. Rep. 772; Case v. Loflus, 39 Fed. Rep. 730; Scurry v. Jones, 4 Wash. 468; Eisenbach v. Hatfield, 2 Wash. 236; Boston v. Le Craw, 17 How. 432, 433; Fitchburg R. R. Co. v. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 3 Cush. 86, 87; Winnisimmett Co. v. Wyman, 11 Allen, 432; Hamlin v. Pairpoint Mfg. Co., 141 Mass. 51; Austin v. Rutland Ry. Co., 17 Fed. Rep. 46C; 45 Vt. 215; State v. Cozzens, 2 R. I. 561; Engs v. PecJcham, 11 R. I. 210; Gerhard v. Seekonk etc. Commrs., 15 R. I. 334; East Haven v. Hemmingway, 7 Conn. 186; Prior v. Swartz, 62 Conn. 132, 136, 138; 36 Am. St. Rep. 333; American Dock etc. C'o.v. Public School Trustees, 39 N. J. Eq. 409; Potomac Steamboat Co. v. Upper Potomac etc. Co., 109 U. S. 672; Hardy v. McCullough, 23 Gratt. 251; Norfolk City v. Cooke, 27 Gratt. 435; McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391; Hatfield v. Grirnstead,7 Ired. 139; Bondv. Wool, 107 N. C. 148,150; Gregory v. Forbes, 96 N. C. 77; State v. Narroios Island Club, 100 N. C. 477; 6 Am. St. Rep. 618; Rivas v. Solary, 18 Fla. 122; Galveston v. Menard, 23 Tex. 349; Hogg v. Beerman, 41 Ohio St. 81; 52 Am. Rep. 71.)

The town of Oakland could not pass the legal title to the lands on the waterfront by ordinance. (Dillon on Municipal Corporations, 4th ed., secs. 581, 582; ’ Oakland v. Carpentier, 13 Cal. 540.) The confirmatory act of 1854, applies to legislative o?dinances generally, and cannot be presumed to have been intended to give away the property of the city by confirming a void granting ordinance. (San Diego Water Co. v. San Diego, 59 Cal.. 521, 522; Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes, secs. 113, 114; United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 400.) The act of March 21, 1868, did not apply to the title of the city, there being no “ controversy” to which it applied, and it did not embrace the subject matter of the waterfront. (Haseltine v. Hewitt, 61 Wis. 121.) The compromise was unreasonable in that it gave away substantially the entire waterfront. (San Diego v. San Diego etc. R. R. Co., 44 Cal. 113, 114.) The legislature cannot give away property held by the city upon a public trust, nor sanction an unauthorized conveyance of it. (San Francisco v. Itsell, 80 Cal. 57; Weisenberg v. Truman, 58 Cal. 63; People v. Kerr, 27 N Y. 188; Ligare v. Chicago, 139 Ill. 46; 32 Am. St. Rep. 179; Matthews v. Alexandria, 68 Mo. 115; 30 Am. Rep. 776.) The consent judgment could not estop the city as to property held by it upon a public trust. (San Francisco v. Le Roy, 138 U. S. 656; Jenlcins v. Robertson, L. R. 1 Sc. & Div. App. Cas. 117; Kelly v. Milan, 127 IT. S. 139; Branham v. San Jose, 24 Cal. 604.) The dismissal of the bill in Oakland v. Carpentier, supra, did not conclude the rights of the city. (Fulton v. Hanloio, 20 Cal. 450; Rosenthal v. McMann, 93 Cal. 508, 509; Flandreauv. Downey,23 Cal. 354; Davenport v. Turpin, 43 Cal. 597; Russell v. Place, 94 U. S. 606.) The waterfront being devoted to public use could not be sold under execution. (Darlington v. Mayor etc., 31 N. Y. 164; 88 Am. Dec. 248; Ran-son v. Boat, 29 Iowa, 68; Hart v. Burnett, 15 Cal. 530.) The statute of limitations is not applicable to this case. (Weber v. Harbor Comnirs., 18 Wall. 67.) The grant to Carpentier was necessarily revocable from the nature of the case, and was in fact revoked. (Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387.)