The San Francisco call., 1895-10-10
VICTORY FOR CORONADO,
San Diego Will Have to Pay Its
Bonded Indebtedness
Alone.
FINAL DECISION YESTERDAY
The Supreme Court Confirms the
Ruling Made by the Court In the
Southern County.

The suit of P. L. Johnson and others
the obligation of Coronado Beach prop
erty-owners to the city for portion of San
Diego's bonded debt was decided by the
Supreme Court yesterday. The verdict is
against San Diego.
Coronado Beach was set apart from San
Diego on October 16, 1890. The city had a
bonded Indebtedness of $484, ,00U, and after
the change of the territory the assessments
against the Coronado district were con-
tinued, but Johnson and others protested,
and they won their case in the Superior
Court, the verdict being now affirmed.
All the improvements for which the
bonded Indebtedness was created, are
within the present limits of San Diego.
The Superior Court declared that it is no
hardship for the present city to assume the
Indebtedness.
Justice Henshaw held the same view in
the Supreme Court opinion that was writ
ten by him.
The statement of the case presented in
the brief filed on behalf of the Coronado
plaintiffs by Gibson & Titus and S. M.
Shortridge, is as follows
At the time of the exclusion of said territory
| the municipality of San Diego had a bonded
| Indebtedness of $4S4, 900. This Indebtedness
was created by the said city of San Diego for
| the following purposes, and the manner and
| place in which the proceeds thereof were ex-
pended were as follows
| for the purpose of constructing sewer system
| in said city. and the proceeds thereof were ex-
pended in constructing such sewer system In
that portion of said city lying north and east
| of the Bay of San Diego.
| Seventy-two thousand dollars of such indebt-
| edness was created for the purpose of buying
| schoolhouse lots and constructing school
buildings for the of the city schools of said
| city, and the proceeds thereof were expended
| in purchasing schoolhouse lots and erecting
/ school buildings in that portion of said city
| lying north and east of the Bay of San Diego.
| Sixty-two thousand dollars of such indebted
| ness was created for the purpose of refunding
| bonds of such city, which were formerly issued
| by said city, the proceeds of which bonds were
used for the purpose of clearing the city's title
| to certain real estate and buying certain rights
| of way and depot grounds in said city, all of
which property lies north and east of the Bay
! of San Diego.
The value of the property belonging to the
| city of San Diego at the time of the exclusion
| of said territory was 100000
| All of the property of said city remained
within its boundaries, and under the control
| OF said city after said territory was excluded.
The city of San Diego had never made any
| Improvements in the said excluded territory
| and owned no property in it.
The assessed value of the property situate in
said city OF San Diego at the time the city as
sessment was made Immediately preceding the
exclusion of said territory was S14 ,423 ,534,
and the assessed value of said excluded terri
tory, shown by said city assessment, was
81 ,06s, ,129-the ratio of these values being
about as IA to /.
The plaintiffs further contend that as
they received no benefit from the debt they
should not in equity be compelled to pay it,
and that under the statute of 1898 nothing
could be collected. The Supreme Court
took the same view.