Court Opinion

ID: 9856499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:48:39.298453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:51.273647
License: Public Domain

WILSON, J.
I dissent from the order denying a rehearing and adhere to my dissenting opinion filed upon the original submission of this case. The opinion of the majority of this court denying a hearing does no more than reaffirm and emphasize their errors in their opinion sustaining the judgment of the superior court. The vice of both opinions is that the majority have accepted the findings of the trial court as being based on evidence of facts, whereas, as pointed out in my dissent, the evidence of the city officials did not assert statements of fact but consisted entirely of opinions which had no facts for their support. There are no facts that sustain the finding that the city council did not abuse its discretion in ordering the closing of one block of a street which is a mile in length. There is not only no substantial evidence but there is no evidence at all to sustain the findings. The members of the council, when called into court to justify their action, expressed their opinions that the closing of the block would expand the industries of the city, but the record may be searched in vain for a single statement of fact upon which the court could base a finding to that effect. Nevertheless, the trial court and the majority of this court have accepted those opinions as evidence of the fact that the closing of the street will permit the establishing of more and greater manufacturing industries, notwithstanding the uncontradicted evidence that all property within several blocks of the land donated to Fairbanks, Morse & Company is already occupied by industrial plants. There was no evidence that there was even a remote prospect that any new industry would be located at any point in Pomona as a result of closing the street, or otherwise.
The vacating of a public street in order to give it to a private corporation is not in the public interest, as pointed out in my former dissenting opinion. The majority agree with this statement as one “of abstract law” but say it is irrelevant to this cause because, forsooth, the trial court found that the closing of the street was solely in the public interest. The majority did not in their previous opinion and does not now point to any evidence in support of the finding, and there is none. The evidence is that the members of the public who *479previously traveled directly along the street are now compelled to go around the block, making four right angle turns in so doing. All members of this court have repeatedly joined in opinions reversing judgments because they were not sustained by evidence of facts and because the trial court had erroneously received opinion evidence. Why should this case be an exception to the rule ?
The statement in the majority opinion that the findings attacked in my dissenting opinion were a recital of findings of the city council and that the findings approved by the majority were those of the court demonstrates that the majority have not read the dissenting opinion or have missed the point. I made no attack on the findings of the council but made it clear that my objections were to the findings of the court. In the second paragraph of my opinion I stated the findings of the trial court that were not supported by the evidence. This was followed by a discussion of both the findings of the court and the findings of the city council as stated in its resolution and the testimony given in court by members of that body. Both their resolution and their evidence were shown to have been expressions of opinion with a total absence of facts. I made no attack on the findings of the council for the obvious reason that appellants’ argument was addressed to the findings of the court.
The majority now vainly attempt to negate the fact, as pointed out in my dissent, that their opinion disregards and disavows in its entirety the decision in People v. Los Angeles, 62 Cal.App. 781 [218 P. 63]. Their effort to distinguish this case from the Los Angeles ease is based on the fact that in the instant case the findings of the trial court sustained the action of the city council while in the Los Angeles case the court found in favor of the plaintiff. The majority have not taken the time to point out in what manner this difference in the result of the actions affects the law as announced in the Los Angeles case. The facts in the two cases are parallel. It would be difficult for any court to formulate an argument sustaining opposing statements of law on identical facts. In each ease the street was vacated in order that the corporation owning property on both sides might have the ownership and use of it for private purposes and personal gain; the announced purpose of closing the street was to promote industry in the city as a whole and to encourage the maintenance and building of industry for the benefit of the city and its inhabitants; the city officials gave their opinions to that *480effect; the street had been improved and had been used for public travel; the public was excluded and the corporation was given uninterrupted possession. The original opinion of the majority and their opinion denying a rehearing are strangely devoid of any attempt to reconcile their statements of law with those in the Los Angeles case, yet they solemnly announce that they do not disagree with the decision in that case and disavow their intent to “overthrow or disregard” it.
In both of their opinions the majority have failed to distinguish between motive and purpose. The difference is important in a case of this character. Their discussions have revolved around the motives of the city council and have ignored the purpose of the abandonment proceedings. While the motives may have been good yet if the purpose was an abuse of discretion or if it redounded against the public interest, as is the case in the instant proceeding, the action of the council should be set aside. (People v. Los Angeles, 62 Cal.App. 781,.787-9 [218 P. 63].) I pointed out in my dissent that the cases relied on by the majority did not distinguish between the motives of the city officials and the purpose of the abandonment proceedings and that they were so factually different from the instant case that they did not sustain the majority opinion. If there be any advantage to the public from the vacating of a street it must come from the vacation itself and not from any future use of the vacated property. (People v. San Rafael, 95 Cal.App. 733, 740 [273 P. 138] ; People v. Los Angeles, supra, at p. 789; Horton v. Williams, 99 Mich. 423 [58 N.W. 369].)
Since the result of the abandonment proceedings is to create two dead-end streets where one through street existed previously, it strains one’s credulity to accept the court’s finding that the public interest is served by the vacation proceedings.
The petition for rehearing should be granted and the judgment should be reversed with directions to enter judgment for plaintiff.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied January 10, 1949. Carter, J., voted for a hearing.