City of Los Angeles v. Stone

THE COURT. A hearing was granted in this cause after decision by the District Court of Appeal in and for the Second Appellate District, Division One, not because of any dissatisfaction with the opinion of that court but solely because of the pendency here of another appeal wherein three of the four trustees of The Colburn Biological Institute sought, as in the instant ease, to procure a substitution of attorneys for the institute and a dismissal of an appeal on its behalf. We have this day granted the requested relief in such other appeal (The Colburn Biological Institute v. Shaffer, L. A. No. 16550, ante, p. 168 [82 Pac. (2d) 938]), as did the District Court of Appeal herein. Therefore, and upon the authority of the cited case, as well as for the reasons advanced by Mr. Justice White in his opinion prepared herein when the cause was pending before the District Court of Appeal, we hereby adopt said opinion as and for the decision of this court. It reads:

“This is a motion by appellant, acting through three of its four trustees, for a substitution of attorneys and a dismissal of this appeal. For an understanding of the pending proceeding it will be necessary to set out some of the facts in connection with the litigation.

“This action was commenced October 23, 1928, under the Street Opening Act of 1903 (Stats. 1903, p. 376), for the opening, widening, extending and laying out of Allesandro street from the Los Angeles river to Glendale boulevard. In November 1929, to the end that some immediate improvement work might be done in Allesandro street to handle the volume of traffic, the Los Angeles city council ordered the board of public works to prepare plans and advertise for bids for the paving of that portion of Allesandro street then owned by the city. Subsequently, upon the petition of various organizations and citizens that a wider pavement be constructed, and upon certain property owners, including appellant herein, giving a written consent to the city to enter upon a portion of the land then being [172]condemned in this action and construct thereon a concrete sidewalk, the city proceeded to construct the sidewalk in accordance with the terms of said agreement between such property owners and the city. Thereafter, an interlocutory judgment was entered in this cause, determining the amount of awards to be paid to each defendant therein, and assessments were spread under the provisions of the Street Opening Act of 1903 for the purpose of raising funds with which to pay these awards. Following this, the city council determined that the awards made were so excessive and the assessments spread against each property so high in proportion to the actual value of the property, that in the opinion of the city council the property in said assessment district could not bear the burden of such high assessments. As an example of the wisdom of the city council in thus determining, it might be said that the assessment against the property of appellant herein alone was in excess of $39,000, whereas its award in said action for land sought to be taken and severance damage was but $15,005.73. No public funds being available for contribution to the cost of the improvement for the purpose of reducing said assessments, the city council on December 18, 1935, adopted an ordinance abandoning said condemnation and said assessment proceedings. The city did not at any time take immediate possession of any of the land sought to be condemned in said action by virtue of said proceedings, or any possession other than that pursuant to the agreements aforesaid.