Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Jan

FOURT, J.

This is an appeal by defendant Bobert Wanamaker from a judgment in favor of plaintiff in a condemnation action.

The plaintiff brought an action in eminent domain to take a number of parcels of real property for the construction, operation and maintenance thereon of a permanent channel and appurtenant works to carry, control and confine the flood, storm and waste waters of the Bio Hondo Channel. Among the parcels to be taken was one known as parcel 70, which consisted of a strip about 250 feet wide, from property owned by appellant and on which he operated an airport.

[391]

The complaint set forth, among other allegations, the following :

“IV

“That the public interest and necessity require the acquisition by the plaintiff, for public uses and purposes authorized by law, of the fee simple title in and to Parcels . . . 70 . . ., for the construction, operation and maintenance thereon of a permanent channel and appurtenant works to carry, control and confine the flood, storm and other waste waters of the Rio Hondo Channel, from approximately 450 feet northerly of Rosemead Boulevard to Lambert Avenue, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. ...”

“VI

“That the property hereinafter described and sought to be condemned herein, as aforesaid, has not heretofore been appropriated to any public use, other than as a natural channel over a portion thereof, . . . and that the proposed public improvement thereon has been planned and located in a manner which is and will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.”

After describing the portion of appellant’s property sought to be taken the prayer of the complaint requires the defendant to set forth the nature, character and extent of his estate in the parcel sought to be condemned and severance damages, if any, to the remainder by reason of the taking of the property and the construction of the improvements thereon in the manner proposed by the plaintiff.

Appellant demurred to the complaint upon the grounds that it was ambiguous, unintelligible and uncertain in that it could not be ascertained therefrom, (1) what is meant by “permanent channel,” (2) what is meant by the expression “appurtenant works,” (3) where, how, in what manner, or if at all a “permanent channel” and “appurtenant works” to carry, control and confine the flood, storm and other waste waters of the Rio Hondo Channel will be constructed, (4) when, or if at all, the construction will be commenced or completed, (5) how, or in what manner the proposed public improvement has been planned or located “so as to be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury,” and (6) what plan, if any, has been adopted by plaintiff for the proposed construction.