The herald., 1897-12-04

An important decision, involving the
right of the city to condemn private
property for the purpose Of opening a
street. and the manner in which that
condemnation may be made. has been
rendered by the supreme court OF Cali
fornia. The case in which the decision
is rendered Is that of the City Of Los
Angeles VS.. Leavis ct al, and the de-
cision Is a complete victory for the city.
The case had been in the courts for
The defendants contended that the city
had no right to take money from the
treasury for the purpose of instituting
condemnation proceedings, but that that
kind Of proceedings had to be instituted
in the usual way. 1t was upon an ad-
verse decision to thi scontention In the
lower court that the defendants ap-
pealed the case, and the decision Is now
sustained, giving the victory to the city.
The opinion Of the court was delivered
by Justice Henshaw, Justices Temple
and Mcfarland concurring. The opinion
of the court is as follows:
THE City of Los Angeles brought suit
to condemn land for a public street
Judgment passed for plaintiff and from
this judgment and from an order deny
ing defendants motion for n new trial.
the defendants appeal
THE city instituted its action under
the provisions of part III, title Z, of the
Code Of Civil Procedure. Before the
commencement of the suit it had not re-
sorted to the steps and processes con-
templated by the statute of March s,
1889, relative to, the laying out. opening,
extending, widening and Strengthening
of the public streets in municipalities.
(Statutes of 1889, p. 7O.)
''The single proposition here advanced
by appellants is that the city has no
power or authority to commence or
maintain this action without resort first
had to the method provided III this
statute.
This contention we think is untena-
BILE. The provisions of the act of March
8, 1889, are not exclusive and were not
designed to prohibit municipality from
maintaining condemnation proceedings
under the provisions of the Code of
civil Procedure. 1t may and will usually
happen that municipality proposing
to open new street will adopt the ma
chinery provided by the statute, and if
for no other reason than that it con-
templates the formation of an assess
ment district and the imposition of the
cost or the opening of the street upon
the property of that district. But on the
other hand. if it shall happen that a
municipality has in its treasury funds
available for the proposed condemnation
and opening of the street, no good reason
can be seen why it should not pay these
expenses out of it's treasury and relieve
property owners Of the unnecessary
burden of taxation. In Pasadena VS..
Stimson. 81 Cal. 23S, the court, after
quoting section 1901 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, declared: "A corporation.
whether private or public, is a person.
1t follows therefore that under this gem
eral law, general in the widest and full
est sense of the term, any public or pri-
vate corporation or any natural person
may for any of the uses defined in sec
tion 1898 of the Code of Civil Procedure
acquire property without the consent OF
the owner by means of the proceedings
described in part Ill, title Z, of the
CODE" In City of Santa Cruz VS.. En-
right the same construction is given to
the law.
THE judgment and orders appealed
from are therefore affirmed.'