Court Opinion

ID: 9864610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 14:21:08.299794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:25.944101
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
In the petition for rehearing herein, it appears that objection is taken by appellants to the statement contained in the opinion to the effect that the determination by the city council as to the question of public interest and convenience requiring the closing of the street was made before any protest was filed and necessarily before any hearing was had thereon. The facts are that after the petition for vacating the street was presented and before the ordinance of intention was passed, a protest was filed, but it is only after the ordinance of intention has been passed and notice of public work has been posted by the street superintendent that protests are authorized to be filed. (See. 4, Stats. 1889, p. 70.) It was regardless of such protests that the city council made its determination, as expressed in its ordinance of intention, “that the public interest, necessity and convenience” required that the street be
*795closed. Other protests, which were subsequently filed, were overruled by the city council. [3] The final ordinance contains no declaration to the effect that the public interest or convenience requires that the street be closed; but it must be conceded that the case of Brown v. Board of Supervisors, 124 Cal. 278 [57 Pac. 82], is authority for the rule that “the adoption of the order is a determination by the board that the public interest or convenience requires the improvement.” After such modification of the original opinion herein, we are satisfied with the views of the court as therein expressed.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on September 5, 1923.