Williams v. Los Angeles Ry. Co.

Lot Fronting on Street—Private Easements as Appurtenances.—■ Every lot fronting upon a street has as appurtenances thereto certain private easements in the street in front of and adjacent to the lot, which are part of the lot, and are private property as fully as the lot itself, though exercised in the street and extending into and over the street.

Id..—Nature of Private Easements.—The private easements appurtenant to the lot are: First, the right of ingress and egress to and from the lot over and by means of the street; second, the right to receive light from the space occupied by the street, and to the circulation of air therefrom; and, third, the right to have the street space . kept open so that signs or goods displayed in and upon the lot may be seen by the passersby, in order that they may be attracted as customers.

Id.—Obstruction to Use of Street—Private Injury to Owner of Lot—Damages—Injunction.—Any obstruction to the use of the street, which impairs or destroys the private easements appurtenant to an abutting lot, is a private injury to the owner of the lot, different and distinct from the injury to the general public; and the owner may maintain an action for damages for the injury, or for an injunction to prevent its continuance, regardless of the fact that the same obstruction also constitutes an injury to the public right of travel, and regardless of the number of persons who may -suffer a similar injury to private easements appurtenant to other lots fronting on the street.

Id.—Erection of Switch-Tower in Street—Franchise for Electric Bailway—Power of City Authorities.—The erection of a switch-tower on the street in front of plaintiff’s lot, which is an obstruction to some extent to the exercise of the private easements of plaintiff, is not included in the granting of a franchise to lay tracks in the streets, and to run ears thereon by electricity, if it can be placed on private property, at whatever cost, and can there be used in substantially the same manner, and, if so,' the city authorities cannot give the right to put it in the street, to the detriment of the private rights of the plaintiff, without first making compensation to him for the damage caused thereby, if any.

Id.—Extent of Damage—Injunction Pendente Lite—Granting or Befusal in Discretion of Court.—The question as to the extent or slightness of the damage caused by the obstruction, or whether it ought to justify an injunction pendente lite, was a matter for the determination of the trial court; and the question of granting or refusing an application for a temporary injunction was addressed to the discretion of the lower court, and its action in refusing it will not be disturbed on appeal, where there appears to be no clear abuse of discretion.

Id.—Question foe Final Heabing.—If the damage or injury threatened is of a character which may be easily remedied, if the injunction is refused, as where it is chiefly monetary damage, and the defendant is solvent, the court, in its discretion, may refuse to issue a temporary injunction, leaving the question for the final hearing, at which the court could allow compensation in the action, under the prayer for general relief, and could in the final judgment restrain the use of the tower, or command its removal, unless the damage was paid within a time fixed.