Mono County Irrigation Co. v. State (1916) · DecisionDepot

Mono County Irrigation Co. v. State

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Nov 24, 1916 No. Civ. Nos. 1460 and 1461.Published

Before: Burnett

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the State of California, having disclaimed any legal or equitable interest in the lands subject to condemnation, is not an aggrieved party and therefore lacks standing to maintain an appeal.

Issues

Whether the State of California has standing to appeal a condemnation judgment when it disclaims any interest in the subject property.
Whether the State of California can assert the interests of the United States in an appeal where the United States is not a party to the action.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The state has no authority to represent it in the proceeding or to urge on appeal questions which affect only the rights or interest of the said United States.”

“The appeal in each of the said causes is dismissed.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and John T. Nourse, Deputy Attorney-General, for Appellants.

BURNETT, J.

These cases involve the same principle and may, therefore, be considered together. Each was an action brought in the superior court of Mono County for the purpose of condemning certain lands for reservoir purposes, and alleged to be owned by the state of California and situated within the boundaries of a United States forest reserve, to wit, the Mono forest reserve, in said Mono County. The lands were reserved and set apart as reserved forest lands by the act of Congress approved October 1, 1890 (26 U. S. Stats. at Large, p. 650, [7 Fed. Stats. Ann., p. 309, 5 U. S. Comp. Stats. (1916), sec. 5209]). The United States township plat of the survey of said section was approved by the United States surveyor-general on May 29, 1895.

In its brief, appellant states: “These lands were, therefore,

unsurveyed

lands at the time they were included within the reservation. They were thus lost to the state of California ‘and the state had received indemnity in lieu of its loss.’ . . . The lands sought to be condemned in this action being unsurveyed lands at the time of the creation of the forest reserve in 1890, the state of California at that time lost all interest in these lands.”

In view of the foregoing affirmation, the inquiry naturally arises, "Why is the state of California complaining of the judgment? Why should it be concerned over the condemnation of land to which, admittedly, it had and has no title, legal or equitable?

That there may be no mistake as to the attitude of appellant, we quote further from its brief: “Since October 1st, 1890, the state of California has not had the title, possession or right to possession of the lands sought to be condemned, but ever since said time the title to said lands has been vested in the United States of America, and the United States has also since said date had the possession and control of the lands sought to be condemned. ... If the state has no title to the lands it should not accept the money awarded.”

And in the closing brief the final declaration is as follows: “The result is, therefore, that the state of California did not

[186]

Mono County Irrigation Co. v. State

AI Brief

Synopsis

BURNETT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief