Norberg

City of Burlingame v. Norberg

Good Law
1930 Cal. LEXIS 358·210 Cal. 105·290 P. 587
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 30, 1930Docket No. S.F. 13335.California835 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Preston, J.

Apparently it is conceded that on August 10, 1905, the Howard Estate Company, a corporation, filed a supplemental map to the official map of the City of Burlingame, showing a division of a tract of land owned by it into lots and blocks and at the same time showing without name or number a strip running irregularly across said tract some twenty feet in width, embracing therein the bed of Burlingame Creek. The present controversy involves the reversionary estate in that portion of said strip, 155 feet 3 inches long, which parallels the city hall property in said town.

The uncontroverted facts are that following the filing of said map, plaintiff took possession of this area and has improved it as a channel for the drainage of storm waters arising in said town. Along the property in controversy at least it has also constructed a retaining wall in said stream and between this wall and the southern boundary line of the city hall property, a width of some four feet, it has filled in said creek and for thirteen years next prior to the commencement of this action has utilized said four-foot strip in connection with the said city hall property. It appears also that said corporation, on…

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.