County of Los Angeles v. Beverley

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiff after trial before a jury in an action to recover damages for the taking of private property in an eminent domain proceeding, defendants appeal.

Facts:

The complaint in condemnation filed February 14, 1952 alleged “That the property hereinafter described constitutes a part only of a larger parcel, ’ ’ and the prayer of the complaint asked: “That such several estates and interests may be determined and adjudicated in this action, and that the value of each and every separate interest or estate in the parcel of real property sought to be condemned herein,

and the severance damages,

if any to those parts of larger parcels, which will accrue to the portions thereof not sought to be condemned herein,

by reason of their severance from the portion sought to be condemned herein,

and the construction of the improvement in the manner proposed by the plaintiff, be separately ascertained and adjudicated.” (Italics added.)

In the answer filed May 22, 1952, by defendants it was alleged:

“Defendant alleges that said parcel sought to be condemned

[91]

is only a part of a larger contiguous parcel, which whole, has for a number of years been devoted to use as a cheese processing and manufacturing plant, that it is an integral part of said plant and the operation of the plant as a manufacturing unit would be impossible without said parcel sought to be condemned; that all of said property has been in said industrial use for a number of years; that after the dedication of said property to industrial use the property was zoned by the County Regional Planning Commission as a residential property zone; that no other industries can be established in said zone; that the property of defendant being dedicated to industrial use prior to the zoning was unaffected thereby, and that said zoning had the effect of greatly enhancing the fair market value of the said property of the defendant.

“That in the year 1949, while this defendant was owner of said parcel of the property sought to be condemned, a subsidiary organization of the Richfield Oil Company chose this parcel as a drilling site for extensive oil exploration and development. That in the months of August and September of 1949, said subsidiary for the Richfield Oil Company did drill an oil well upon said site to an approximate depth of 5,000 feet, and placed casings in the shaft drilled, expending in all some fifty thousand dollars. That though no oil was then produced this defendant has been informed and does believe that there are others who are interested in reaching a lower level oil bearing sand, and that the existing shaft greatly enhances the value of said parcel sought to be condemned. That the casing now in said well is worth four thousand dollars.