The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1894-02-24
THE TEMPLE BLOCK CASE
THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES
AGAINST THE CITY.
Decision of the Superior Court in the
Case Ahnrmsd-rhe Arrowhead
Reservoir Company Case
Also Decided.


Cohn ct al, respondents, was received
at the Los Angeles Office of the supreme
court yesterday.
The plaintiff brought the action to re-
cover the possession of small tract o.
land which lies at the intersection o.
Spring and Main streets, and which IL
covered by a portion OF the Temple
block. It was claimed by the city thai
this land WAS part OF public street.
AT the conclusion OF the trial the courl
made it's findings of facts to the effect
that the defendants were the owners oil
the land at the time the action was
commenced, and that they and theil
grantors and predecessors had been in
the actual and exclusive occupation and
possession OF the property for more than
40 years.
Upon these findings judgment went
for the defendants, and this appeal was
prosecuted from that judgment and
from the order denying a motion for q
new trial.
In discussing the character Of the pos
teesion the supreme court says that an
uninterrupted possession of 40 or so
years is full of meaning, even against
municipal corporation; and in some
states such conduct upon the part OF the
city would conclusively indicate an
abandonment by it OF all right to the
land as public highway.
In 1871 Temple began the erection of
a block OF buildings upon g certain par
eel of land. which included upon the
north end thereof the strip in dispute.
The contemplated structure WAS to be
three stories in height, and extended
over this tract of land. The founda-
tions being laid, it was reported to the
city council by the street commissioner
that Temple, the owner, was encroach-
ing upon the public etreet with his
building, and upon an order OF the coun-
Gil the matter was referred to the city
attorney for investigation.
subsequently the city attorney made a
lengthy report TO the council, wherein
in detail he reviewed the merits OF the
claims OF both parties, and in conclu-
sion held that Temple wac the owner OF
the land, and was justified in erecting
the building as he had begun it.
This report received and filed. Tbs
building was ere cted, and nothing iur-
Their was ever done by the city until the
present action wac brought, % years
later.
In reviewing the case the supreme
court says that if it be conceded that
the legal title to this land has always
been in the city, that tact alone avails
the city nothing, for an assertion OF its
claims upon that ground has been barred
by the statute Of limitations for many
years.
dedication OF the property ae pub
lie highway resulting from the filing OF
certain map in 1919, forme The basis of
plaintiff g cause OF action, and the court
says that conceding tie hing of thia
map to have had all the force and effect
claimed for it, and that dedication re-
suited therefrom, yet the plaintiffs con-
duet has been such that whatever merit
ITS claims may nave possessed yeare ago,
/ there Is ho merit In IL now.
bile municipal corporations do
not own their public streets, and
while the laches of public OIL
GERS cannot defeat the rights OF
OF the public in those streets, says the
court, yet individuals have some rights
which lI the exercise of common justice
the municipality must respect. Its con-
duct towards citizen pertaining to the
boundary line OF one of its highways
may be such that it would be violation
OF every principle OF right and morals to
allow it TO recede from the stand taken
or the agreement made.
The court says that Judgment for
| plaintiff would result in a destruction of
the property; that it is a Case where an
estoppel in pals is properly pleaded, and
for the reasons given the Judgment and
order OF the lower court lie affirmed.
JUDGMENT is AFFIRMED.
The supreme court has affirmed the
judgment OF the lower court in the case
of F. L. Tslmadgs, appellant We. Ar
rowhesd Reservoir company.
1t was alleged in the, original com
plant that the plaintiff and defendant
entered into a written agreement in
April, 1892, by which they submitted to
arbitration the amount to be paid and
received fer the east half of certain
sixteenth section of land in San Bernar-
dino county.
The arbitrators fixed the value OF the
land at sl8 900, and in June tender of
deed for the land for that amount was
made to the defendant by the plaintiff,
but by him declined.
A second tender was made which was
likewise declined, and he sued to obtain
judgment for the amount, $4,000.
The defendant objected at the trial to
all the offered evidence, that it did not
state cause of action, for the reason
that it did not show any case for sub
mission to arbitration, or any compli-
ance with the statute in regard to arbi.
trations, or that any contract had ever
been made between plaintiff and de.
PENDANT Tor the purchase of the land, or
upon which any civil action could have
been brought or maintained by either
party.
The court sustained the objection that
the complaint did not state cause Of
action. and rendered judgment for the
defendant, from which the plaintiff ap.
pealed.
After discussing the case, the supreme
court says that it is clear no price for
the land was ever agreed upon by the
contracting parties, and no enforceable
contract WAS ever made. The judgment
of the lower court is therefore affirmed
Ten days loss of time on account OF
sickness and doctor bill to pay, Is any
thing but pleasant for a man of family
to contemplate, whether he lie q laborer,
mechanic, merchant or publisher. Jas.
o. Jones, publisher of the Leader,
,Mexis, Texas, was sick in bed for 10
days with the grip, during it's preva