The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1894-11-25
CONTRASTING AN ORDINANCE.

claim That Negro Alley Ought Not
to Have Been Vacated.
In department three OF the superior
court. yesterday. the case of P. Larronde
ct. al. va. P. GARNER ct. al. came up
for consideration. Judge York handed
down the following opinion which
treats Of the main part involved:
''The pivotal question to be consider
ed on the demurrer to the complaint in
this case is as to whether Q certain or
dinance passed by the city council of
the city of Los Angeles on April 20, 1889.
vacating and abandoning Negro alley for
street purposes, was valid and operative
to vacate and abandon said alley. The
plaintiffs contend that inssmuch % they
were owners Of property fronting on said
alley and no notice was given them OF
the proposed action of the council, and
they were paid no damages for the vaca-
ton and abandonment of the alley, that
therefore said action of the council was
in excess of Jurisdiction and void. The
complaint declares that the alley has
been an open and public highway for
more than so years."
Under the law OF Mexico in force at
the time of the creation of this high
way, the ownership of the fee in this
highway was in the people. The fee has
remained in the people and there has
been no private proprietorship therein.
do not understand that the plaintiffs
claim that their complaint shows that
they are or ever were the owners of the
fee in this alleged highway.
In Levee district No. 8 W. Farms, 101
Cal. 1856, the supreme court of this state
says: THE interest OF each abutting
owner 10 the same. Though it may be
OF greater use or benefit to one than to
others, it is a common right, created in
the same way, for the same purpose, of
the same duration and subject to be dis.
continued when the interests Of the pub
lie, for whose benefit it was created. re-
quires it-that is, when it ceases to be
necessary for public use. The easement
is created for the public, n OF for an in
dividual, though an individual may
have a private way even by condemns-
ton nor does the fact that way may
be necessary for single sbutter affect
| the conclusion that it is no longer nee.
eseary as public road. If it we're other
wise no public road could be vacated &C
long az it could be shown that
it was necessary for q single
abutter. and thus the public
would be required to maintain whaI
is in fact q private way. That an abut-
tor may be injured by the discontinue
ance or vacation of the road lie conced-
ed, but there is no contract with sur
rounding property owners that q public
improvement shall always exist as al
present and no damages will be allowed
for it's discontinuance, Notwithstanding
improvements have been made on the
suppostion that they will remain, anc
| notwithstanding has thereby enhanced
in value. mills ON Emiemt domain
sec. 317.) This doctrine is sustained by
the following cases cited in that opin
ion: Barr VS.. City of Oskaloosa, As Iowa
275; McGse's appeal, ia Pa. ST. AT
City of East st. Louis va. O'Flynn, ii!
H., 200.
1t follows that the city council ha
Jurisdiction to vacste and abandon tn
highway and that the same ceased to b,
public street because of the adoption
of said ordinance.
On the vacation and abandonment o
said street the PLAINTIFF retained no in.
terent therein and hence can not main
tain an action to prevent it's obstruc
ton.
1t is, therefore, ordered the demu.
rers of defendants Philippe GARNER, /
w. Hellman, Maria Antonio Wilcox ant
Carl Raiss (the only demurrers submit
ted) be and the same are hereby sus
! taiuad