City of Los Angeles v. Darms

California Court of Appeal Jun 12, 1928 No. Docket No. 6339.Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that it had jurisdiction to determine conflicting claims of title in a condemnation proceeding and that the appellant's failure to properly post notice on unoccupied premises invalidated her claim of title.

Issues

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to determine conflicting claims of title in a condemnation suit.
Whether the evidence supported the finding that the party served with notice of sale was not an occupant of the premises.
Whether the appellant was entitled to reimbursement for bond expenditures raised for the first time on appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The jurisdiction of the court to hear-and determine such conflicting claims is found in section 1247 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

“As appellant claimed solely through, a deed issued under this statute, her failure to comply with these provisions resulted in a finding that she had no title.”

NOURSE, J.

Plaintiff sued to condemn certain land for public purposes, a portion of which was claimed by defendants Warden and Danziger, the former as a -purchaser of a bond which was a lien for public improvements, and the latter as owner by mesne conveyances. Judgment was in favor of the city and, among other things, awarded damages for the taking of the land claimed by these two defendants in the sum of $353; damages to remainder of parcel by said taking $94; and damages to improvements on the parcel $252. By stipulation of counsel the issue as to the ownership of the land was specially set for trial and special findings and judgment' were made and entered quieting the title to this parcel in defendant Danziger, subject to a lien thereon in favor of defendant Warden in the sum of $95.38. The defendant Warden has appealed on a typewritten record.

In her opening brief she advances two grounds for a reversal: That the court was without jurisdiction to try the issue of title to the entire parcel in a condemnation suit, and, that the evidence does not support the finding that the party- upon whom appellant served notice of sale was not the occupant of the premises.

The first point is scarcely open to discussion on this appeal. Though the complaint of the city sought to condemn but a small portion of lot 4 (the property here in controversy), both appellant and defendant filed their answers, claiming ownership to the entire parcel. Under the evidence it became necessary for the court to determine these-conflicting claims because it was found that damages should

[503]

be allowed to the entire parcel for the portion taken. The jurisdiction of the court to hear-and determine such conflicting claims is found in section 1247 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(City of Los Angeles

Pomeroy,

124 Cal. 597, 609 [57 Pac. 585].) The fact that neither party filed a cross-complaint, or a traverse to the pleading of the other, is of no moment, as they stipulated before the hearing that the issue could be tried on the pleadings as they stood.

Where a cause is tried without objection to the sufficiency of the pleadings, both parties assuming that the issues have been properly pleaded, the judgment will not be reversed because of a defect in pleading alone, unless the error complained of is found to have resulted in a miscarriage of justice

City of Los Angeles v. Darms

AI Brief

NOURSE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief