Del Fanta v. Sherman

California Court of Appeal Aug 21, 1930 No. Docket No. 4122.Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a judgment on the pleadings was improper because the reasonableness and constitutionality of a zoning ordinance prohibiting oil drilling in a residence district present questions of fact that require evidence.

Issues

Whether a city may prohibit the use of power necessary for oil drilling in a residence district via a zoning ordinance.
Whether a judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when the reasonableness of a zoning ordinance is contested.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The motion for judgment on the pleadings was, therefore, erroneously granted.”

“municipal by-laws and ordinances undertaking to regulate useful business enterprises are subject to investigation in the courts, with a view to determining whether the law or ordinance is a lawful exercise of the police power”

[748]

THOMPSON (R. L.), J.

This is an appeal from a judgment on the pleadings which was rendered in favor of plaintiffs on the third cause of action for the cancellation of a 20-year lease of land providing for the drilling of an oil-well within the limits of the city of Los Angeles.

August 26, 1922, the respondents executed a 20-year lease of a tract of land consisting of 76.81 acres of land in San Fernando addition to the city of Los Angeles. It is alleged this property was annexed to and became a part of the city of Los Angeles May 22, 1915; that an amendment to ordinance number 3376 was adopted January 12, 1924, including this land within the residence zone limits of the city, within which residence districts the use and maintenance of “any plant, fixed or portable apparatus” is prohibited “where power other than animal power is used . . . provided that one or more electric motors of a total capacity of not to exceed five horsepower may be operated and maintained”; that “it is ... a fact that an oil well as required by said lease . . . cannot be drilled by animal power or by electric motors of only five horsepower capacity”; that by reason of said ordinance the drilling of said well became unlawful and the lease void. The complaint sought to terminate the lease and quiet title to the property. The other counts of the complaint are not involved in this appeal.

The answer “denies each and every allegation and statement in said third cause of action contained” except such matters as were specifically admitted. It was denied that the oil lease was void by reason of the adoption of the ordinance in question and it was alleged that “said real estate constitutes farm lands and that the plaintiffs conduct a dairy business thereon.” The only admission of the answer is to the effect that the plaintiffs were the owners and in possession of the premises. The answer is not specific as to the exact ground upon which it is contended the ordinance is inapplicable to the lease in question. No demurrer was filed to either the complaint or the answer.

It may be doubtful whether the answer would have been sufficiently specific under the law as it existed prior to July 29, 1927.

(Pico

Del Fanta v. Sherman

AI Brief

THOMPSON (R. L.), J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief