It bears emphasis that neither the survey nor the patent was uncertain or ambiguous; it was not so contended at the trial nor is it so contended here. This accord undoubtedly results from a recognition of the long-existing rule that a public grant's angular calls of courses and distances bounding land fronting on tidewater (absent a contrary intent expressly shown by the grant), as a matter of law meanders the ordinary high tide line. (Civ. Code, § 830; Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U.S. 371, 380-384 [ 35 L.Ed. 428, 432-434, 11 S.Ct. 808, 838]; Stillwell v. Jackson (1936) 5 Cal.2d 165, 169 [ 53 P.2d 752]; Los Angeles v. San Pedro etc. R.R. Co., 182 Cal. 652, 653-656 [ 189 P. 449]; Curtis v. Upton, 175 Cal. 322, 334 [ 165 P. 935]; De Watson v. San Pedro etc. R.R. Co., 169 Cal. 520 [ 147 P. 140]; Bouchard v. Abrahamsen, 160 Cal. 792, 798-799 [ 118 P. 233]; Den v. Spalding, 39 Cal.App.2d 623, 627, 633 [ 104 P.2d 81]; City of Los Angeles v. Duncan, 130 Cal.App. 11, 14 [ 19 P.2d 289]; 12 Am.Jur.2d, pp. 573-575; 11 C.J.S., pp. 572-575.) In their briefs on this appeal plaintiffs reiterate — "There is nothing uncertain or ambiguous in either the survey or the patent."
[5] If the sand bar was then above the water and not attached above water to the bank, the title thereto would be in the state as "accumulations of land," formed in the bed of a navigable stream. (See Bouchard v. Abrahamsen (1911) 160 Cal. 792, 797 [ 118 P. 233].) The notes of the surveyor represent his observations at the time he ran the survey line.