Glenn County v. Johnston
Before: Haynes
Synopsis
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Glenn County and from orders denying a new trial and denying a motion of the defendants to vacate and annul proceedings for condemnation. Frank Moody, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Seth Millington, and Charles L. Donohoe, for Appellants.
HAYNES, C.
In July, 1893, proceedings were taken by the board of supervisors of Glenn county to lay out and establish a public road, in part over lands of the defendants, and the viewers awarded to the defendants, as nonconsenting landowners, damages in the sum of one thousand and ten dollars, and an order was made setting aside that sum out of the funds of the proper road district. At the time there was not sufficient money m said fund to pay the same. Afterward, in December, 1893, another order was made setting apart funds for that purpose, but it was not called for or accepted by the defendants. Afterward, the superior court of Glenn county, upon the petition of these defendants, issued a writ of review, and upon the hearing the court found that the board of supervisors had jurisdiction in its proceedings to establish said road, and dismissed the writ; and that judgment was affirmed in this court upon appeal. (See
Johnston v. Board of
Supervisors, 104 Cal. 390, decided October 5, 1894.)
On July 1, 1895, the board of supervisors, by its order, directed the district attorney to commence this proceeding to procure the right of way for said road in accordance with the re
[406]
port of the viewers, and the proceedings of the board, and upon the hearing it was adjudged that the taking of the land was for a public use, and that defendants have judgment for the value of the land taken and damages as assessed by the jury, in the sum of eleven hundred and forty dollars, and judgment was entered March 35, 3898, for said sum, and defendants’ costs, fifty-three dollars and ninety cents.
Defendants moved for a new trial upon a statement of the case, and that motion was denied.
On May 3, 1898, defendants moved the court to vacate and set aside said judgment and to dismiss said action upon grounds hereinafter stated, and that motion was also denied, and defendants appeal from the said judgment and from each of the orders denying said motions.
The jurisdiction of the board of supervisors over all the proceedings prior to the commencement of this action is conclusively settled by the judgment upon the writ of review; and mere irregularities or errors not affecting the jurisdiction of the board do not affect the judgment here appealed from. (Pol. Code, sec. 2690;
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)