Coburn

The proceedings of the Board of Supervisors, in laying out these roads, and in granting the franchises under which defendants claim the wharf, might have been made the subject of review, in proper time, but cannot be attacked collaterally. (Thomas v. Armstrong, 7 Cal. 287 ; Waugh v. Ghauncey, 13 Cal. 11 ; Fall v. Payne, 23 Cal. 302 ; People v. FI Dorado County, 8 Cal. 58 ; People v. Marin County, 10 Cal. 344 .) The wharf and chute were built over the overflowed and submerged lands of the State, and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover them by reason of his ownership of the land in front thereof.' (,Stevens v. Patterson, etc., 34 N. Y. L. 532; Tomlin v. Dubuque P. P. Co. 32 Iowa, 106 ; Lockwood v. N. Y. Syc. P. P. Co. 37 Conn. 387 ; Austin v. Pulland P. P. P. Co. 45 "Ft. 215.) Nor could he maintain the wharf, or exercise the *389 franchise, if he had it in possession. (Monroe v. Thomas, 5 Cal. 470 ; Thomas v. Armstrong, 7 Cal. 286 ; Wood v. Truck.ee Turnpike Co. 24 Cal. 486 ; Wiswell v. Hall, 3 Paige, 314 ; Angelí & Ames on Corporations, sec. 4; People v. Duncan et ais. 41 Cal. 507 ; Bank of Augusta v. Marie, 13 Peters, 595 .) Being established upon the public domain, no one…