City of Los Angeles v. Kerckhoff-Cuzner Mill & Lumber Co.
Before: James
Synopsis
Eminent Domain—Action by City to Cross Land for Street—Evidence—Diagram of Tract—Future Proposed Improvements— Proper Ruling.—In an action by a city to condemn a street across appellant’s land, where appellant without objection proved the particular use to which the tract was put, and also its worth considering the most valuable use to which it was adapted, the court did not err in refusing to allow appellant to put in evidence a diagram of the tract, to show the location and size of proposed improvements to be thereafter made and erected thereon.
Id.—Enhanced Damage for Future Improvements not Allowed.— Appellant could not be allowed to show enhanced damage which it would suffer from being prevented from carrying out a particular scheme of improvements existing only in contemplation at the time of the trial.
Id.—Ruling not Limiting Proper Scope of Proof—Speculative Inquiries.—The ruling of the trial court did not limit the appellant from showing by proof all available uses to which the property might be put, including its peculiar adaptation for certain uses enhancing its value in the market; but such proof may not be extended to speculative inquiries as to possible future uses under altered circumstances, which may or may not arise.
JAMES, J.
Action brought to secure, by condemnation, a strip of land for street purposes. Defendant R. H. Herron
[677]
Company was dissatisfied with the award of damages made by the trial court, and appeals from the judgment.
Appellant in the course of the trial in the superior court offered in evidence a diagram showing the tract of land owned by it, and which would be divided into two parts by the opening of the street proposed to be extended through the same. John M. Sands, a witness familiar with the ground and the diagram, testified as follows: “It is a diagram showing the tract in question and the locations of the shops and improvements of various kinds already constructed by us on that tract, and the locations as planned for the additional improvements to be constructed hereafter; also location of existing switch tracks and proposed additional switch track.” The court refused to admit the diagram in evidence, and this ruling is the only error claimed. From the bill of exceptions it appears that appellant was allowed, unhindered by the court or objection of counsel, to prove the particular use to which the property was being put, and also its worth, considering the most valuable use to which it was adapted. There was ample testimony before the court fully covering these matters, and the only additional subject to be illustrated by the offered diagram was the location of proposed improvements to be thereafter made and erected thereon. At best, this evidence could only be received for the purpose of showing the complete use for which the property was adapted, considering the use then being made of it. Appellant could not be allowed to show enhanced damage which it would suffer by reason of being prevented from carrying out a particular scheme of improvement, existing only in contemplation at the time of the trial. The trial court did not by its ruling limit the parties from showing by proof all available uses to which the property might be put; it simply declined to allow appellant to show the location and size of its proposed improvements, and by this ruling we think no error was committed. The range allowed at the trial in the admission of evidence was broad enough to cover all matters suggested as proper to be considered, by the supreme court in the case of
Muller
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)