¶1Messrs. Daniel Partridge, III, and Philip F. Herrick, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
¶2Mr. John J. Courtney and Mr. Robert R. MacLeod, Atty., Dept. of Justice. Washington, D. C., for respondent.
¶3Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., William J. Peck, Asst. U. S. Atty., Vernon E. West, Corp. Counsel for Dist. of Columbia, Oliver Gasch, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Stanley DeNeale, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., Burdette M. As-bill, and Warren E. Magee, Washington, D. C., entered appearances for respondent.
¶4Mr. William R. Glendon, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., at time petition was filed, also entered an appearance for respondent.
¶5Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
¶7On our remand to the District Court in Martin v. Standard Oil Co., 91 U.S.App.D.C. 84, 198 F.2d 523, Judge Bailey made *43the following finding among others; The Southeasterly boundary of said Lots 6, 7 and 8 owned by plaintiff as aforesaid is the high water mark of the Anacostia River (formerly known as the Eastern Branch) of 1794, as determined in United States v. Martin [85 U.S.App.D.C. 382], 177 F.2d 733.” Petitioner says this finding should be amended by striking the words “of 1794”. “2.
¶8The finding means that “as determined in United States v. Martin” petitioner’s unqualified ownership in fee simple extends only to the high water mark of 1794. The finding is therefore correct. Nothing we said in the Standard Oil case, supra, means that the petitioner has, in land beyond the high water mark of 1794, more than the qualified right she was adjudged to have in United States v. Martin. Judge Bailey’s finding does not mean she has less.
¶9Petition for writ of mandamus denied.