Los Angeles herald., 1892-01-01
CITY LITIGATION.
A Complete List of the City's
Suits.
A Brief Statement of Their
Disposition.
An Abstract of the Status of Pend
ing Cases.
A Summary of the Prosecutions In the
Police Courts for the Year
az SsR Ending December - L.
81, 1891.

Below will be found complete list of
the city law suits for the past year. The
compilation has been made from the
city records by the city attorney. The
list gives brief statement of the dispo-
sition which has been made of each
case, or an abstract of the status of all
cases not disposed of. viz.
H. w. Mills VS.. city of Los Angeles
This action, brought for the purpose OF
determining plaintiff IS claim to sixteen
feet of land lying in Second street, be-
tween Main and Spring streets, was, at
the date OF my last report, pending in
the supreme court. 1t has since been
decided in favor Of the city.
Main Street and Agricultural Park
Railroad VS.. Morford-This action was
brought to enjoin the removal OF part
of plaintiffs building which was alleged
to be in the line OF Washington street.
The action has been tried and decided
adversely to the city's claim.
Louis Phillips ct al. VS.. Len j. Thomp-
son and the city-An action brought by
ffty-six plaintiffs to prevent the collec-
ton of certain taxes on the ground that
the action OF the board of equalization
was illegal and void. At the date of my
last report this case had been decided
adversely to the city and steps
were being taken to appeal the case
to the supreme court in accord
ance with the instructions of
your pre- iecessors in Office. This appeal
has been abandoned by your orders, and
the plaintiffs in the case, with the ex-
ception OF one, have paid all taxes
except the raise made by the board of
equalization.
Alfred Solano ct al. VS.. Len j. Thomp-
son and the city-This is suit involv-
ing the same questions as the Phillips
case, and is practically ended by your
disposition of the Phillips case.
French Benevolent society VS.. city
This action was brought to enjoin the
grading OF Yale street. During the past
year an order dismissing the case was
entered at the instance of the plaintiff.
Mary A. Mooney vs. city of Los
Angeles-This action is brought to quiet
title to piece of land on the corner of
Main and Jefferson streets which has
been taken by the city for street pur-
poses and which plaintiff claims belongs
to her. This case is at issue and set for
trial during the coming week.
Mary A. Mooney vs. w. E. Morford
and the mayor and council-This action
is brought to recover damages in the
amount of $23, 400, alleged to be due for
cutting down and removing certain trees
from the land at the corner of Main and
Jefferson streets. Practically the same
issues are involved as in the last case
mentioned. This case is set for trial
with the other.
Frick Bros. VS.. Morford, street super
intendent-This suit was brought to
compel the street superintendent to
make new assessment for the grading
of Seventh street. At date of my last
report the case was pending on appeal
in supreme court. 1t has since been de-
cided in favor of the street superin-
tendent.
Antonio Valla vs.. city OF Los Angeles
ct al.-This suit was brought to enjoin
the selling of plaintiffs property to pay
assessment for widening First street.
During the past year the case was dis
missed, the matter having been AMIGA
bly, arranged by the property owners
on First street.
Alice Dehail VS.. city of Los Angeles
This suit was brought to enjoin the sale
of plaintiffs property for delinquent as
sessment for widening First street. The
case was decided adversely to the city in
the superior court, and is now pending
on appeal in the supreme court.
Jesse Yarnell VS.. H. T. Hazard and
the city councll--At the date of my last
report this case was pending on appeal
in the supreme court. The question
involved was the right of the city to
farm out the public funds with the bank
which would pay the highest rate OF in
terest for the use of the same. The su-
preme court has since decided that the
city has no such right.
Depot Railway company VS.. city ct
AL; Davis VS.. city ct al, and Saunders
VS.. city ct al.-Three cases pending at
the date of my last report, and involv-
ing the legality of the proceedings taken
for the opening OF Second and Third
streets. These cases have been disposed
of by the abandoning of the former pro
ceedings to open these streets and the
institution of new proceedings. Second
street has since been opened under sucf
new proceedings, and the opening o.
Third street is progressing favorably.
People vs. city and l.. M. Bigelow-
This action is brought to determine
whether or not the land upon which the
Plaza engine house was erected should
not be used for park purposes. Plaintiff
has not pressed the action and it nov
stands in same condition as it did a
date of my last report. The city claiml
nothing adversely to the plaintiffs con
tention.
Los Angeles Cemetery association vs
c'ty-This suit was brought for the pur
pose Of quieting title to certain land
claimed by plaintiff, now in the line
First street. The action has been trie'
in the superior court and was won b.
the city during thepast year. 1t is nov
pending on appeslin the supreme court
Los Angeles Cemetery association We
city. No. 2-This case was brought t
recover damages claimed to have bee
caused to plaintiffs land by reason
the grading of First street. Upon tn
trial OF this action the city's motion TO
non-suit was granted by the court.
City VS.. Ella M. Linde ct al. III
action was brought against numeror
defendants for the purpose OF ascertain
inc the damages which will be cause
to private property by the regarding
Temple and its intersecting streets. III
defendants demurrer to the origin
complaint was sustained and the case
now pending on demurrer to Il
ar,oudad comnlairt.