City of San Jose v. Reed

California Supreme Court

City of San Jose v. Reed

3 P. 806, 65 Cal. 241, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 502

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 14, 1884

DocketNo. 7,846

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 3 P. 806 (City of San Jose v. Reed) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of San Jose v. Reed, 3 P. 806, 65 Cal. 241, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 502 (Cal. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Myrick, J.

This is an action to condemn a parcel of land to the use of plaintiff as a public street. The complaint contains an averment “that said defendants are the only owners or claimants of the premises hereinafter described and sought to be condemned.” On the trial the court permitted the plaintiff to give evidence tending to show that the defendant E. P. Reed had dedicated the land to the public as a street, as affecting the question of damages or compensation. This was error. Ho question of dedication was involved in the pleadings for any purpose. If there had been a dedication, and defendants had unlawfully obstructed the street, an action of another character could have been maintained. Either the land had been dedicated and was a public street, or the defendants were the owners. The plaintiff alleged the latter to be the fact. For the purposes of this action, then, it must stand on the allegation, and we must regard them as such. The jury gave the defendants a verdict of one dollar for the lands taken. By the testimony the lowest estimate of value was two thousand seven hundred dollars; the highest, five thousand four hundred dollars. The verdict was not sustained by the evidence; it was evidently based on the idea of a former dedication.

Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

Thornton, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Myrick, J.

This is an action to condemn a parcel of land to the use of plaintiff as a public street. The complaint contains an averment “that said defendants are the only owners or claimants of the premises hereinafter described and sought to be condemned.” On the trial the court permitted the plaintiff to give evidence tending to show that the defendant E. P. Reed had dedicated the land to the public as a street, as affecting the question of damages or compensation. This was error. Ho question of dedication was involved in the pleadings for any purpose. If there had been a dedication, and defendants had unlawfully obstructed the street, an action of another character could have been maintained. Either the land had been dedicated and was a public street, or the defendants were the owners. The plaintiff alleged the latter to be the fact. For the purposes of this action, then, it must stand on the allegation, and we must regard them as such. The jury gave the defendants a verdict of one dollar for the lands taken. By the testimony the lowest estimate of value was two thousand seven hundred dollars; the highest, five thousand four hundred dollars. The verdict was not sustained by the evidence; it was evidently based on the idea of a former dedication.

Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

Thornton, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 P. 806, 65 Cal. 241, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-san-jose-v-reed-cal-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack