Mendocino County v. Peters

California Court of Appeal Oct 17, 1905 No. Civ. No. 115.Published

Before: McLaughlin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the condemnation of land for the purpose of widening a public highway constitutes a public use and that the county's complaint sufficiently alleged compliance with statutory requirements for such proceedings. Furthermore, the court affirmed the judgment, finding that the defendant's denials were insufficient and that the evidence supported the findings.

Issues

Whether widening a public highway constitutes a public use.
Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged compliance with the Political Code regarding the condemnation process.
Whether the defendant's denials based on want of information or belief were sufficient to raise a triable issue.
Whether the record on appeal was sufficient to support the motion for a new trial.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We cannot concur in the view that widening a public highway is not a public use.”

“The orders passed by the board of supervisors, adopting the report of the viewers, and directing the district attorney to bring this action, foreclose inquiry touching many of the assaults made on the sufficiency of the petition and report.”

“The evidence fully supports the findings and the findings support the judgment.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mendocino County, and from an order denying a new trial. J. Q. White, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

McLAUGHLIN, J.

This is an action to condemn a strip of land for the alteration of a public road by widening the same. The action was dismissed as to H. N. Peters, and judgment condemning the land for the purpose mentioned was" entered. Defendant William Peters appeals from such judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled. We cannot concur in the view that widening a public highway is not a public use. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1238, subds. 3, 4; Pol. Code, sec. 2681; County Government Act, sec. 25, subd. 4 (Gen. Laws 1903, p. 121).) The nature of the alteration, the location, general route, and termmi, the description of land sought to be taken, and its relation to the larger parcel of which it was a part, are fully set forth in the complaint, and in the map attached to and made a part thereof by express reference, as well as by the law. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1238;

San Francisco etc. R. R. Co.

Gould,

122 Cal. 603, [55 Pac. 411].) There is no force in the contention that the facts pleaded do not show that sections 2688 and 2689 of the Political Code were complied with. It appears from the complaint that a hearing was had after due notice, and that appellant was represented at such hearing by his attorney; that the report of the viewers was there and then approved, and the damages ascertained and by order declared and awarded to defendants; that the county treasurer was at the same time and place ordered to set apart the amount so awarded and declared; and that the auditor was directed to draw his warrant on the treasurer in favor of defendants for said amount. It further appears that the am mint, was set apart and the warrant drawn pursuant to the oner of the board, and that the defendants for ten days thereafter refused, and at the- time of filing the complaint still refused, to accept such amount. This is all that the law requires. (Pol. Code, secs. 2688, 2689; Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1963, subds. 15-20;

County of Sonoma

Crozier,

118 Cal. 682, [50 Pac. 845];

Siskiyou County

Gamlich,

110 Cal. 94, [42 Pac. 468];

Glenn County

Mendocino County v. Peters

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief