Ocean Shore Railroad v. Spring Valley Water Co.
Before: Sure
ST. SURE, J.,
pro
tem.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $50,993, consisting of
[44]
$35,000, with interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum from March 11, 1914, to date of judgment.
On the fourteenth day of October, 1905, the Ocean Shore Bailway Company paid to the defendant the sum of thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) for a.grant of a right of way across certain property of the defendant. The agreement between the parties is evidenced by a receipt for the purchase price, which reads as follows:
“San Francisco, October 14, 1905.
“Beceived from Ocean Shore Bailway Company, the sum of thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000.00) October 14, 1905, in full compensation for the right-of-way across and upon the east and north boundaries of Bancho Laguna de la Merced, in accordance with the arrangements made by the board of trustees of the Spring Valley Water Company, at the meeting held in the City of San Francisco, on October 12th, 1905, as follows:
22.50 acres at $2,000.00 per acre...........$45,000.00
Less amount allowed in reduction of the above.
charge.............................. 10,000.00
Balance .....................$35,000.00
“Spring Valley Water Company,
“By Pelham W. Ames, “Secretary.”
and a resolution of the Spring Valley Water Company, passed .by the board of directors at a meeting held November 23, 1905, as follows:
“Besolved that this corporation will grant a surface easement for a right of way sixty (60) feet wide, to the Ocean Shore Bailway Company for its line of railway and solely for railway purposes, over the Lake Merced Bancho in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, and in a location near the easterly and northerly sides of said Bancho, but such surface right-of-way shall be south of Ocean Avenue, and shall be, as to exact location and details of locations and conditions on which the grant shall be made (which conditions shall be precedent, present and subsequent) subject to the directions and approval of the chief engineer of this corporation on his return before any grant is made in the promises.”
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)