Johnson v. Alameda County

14 Cal. 106
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1859·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Cope, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court—Baldwin, J. concurring.

This action was brought to recover the sum of seven hundred and sixty-five dollars and two cents, claimed by the plaintiff as damages consequent upon the opening and laying out of a highway across his lands. The plaintiff has proceeded upon the supposition that the highway was properly opened, and 1ns land lawfully taken from him, and that he has a valid, legal claim against the county for the compensation secured to him by the Constitution. This view is manifestly erroneous. The compensation should have preceded or accompanied the taking, and without it, every act of the Board of Supervisors was illegal and void. The opening of the road was, so far as appears, a simple trespass, for which the plaintiff was entitled to his action against the parties.

Judgment affirmed.

See Bensley v. Mountain Lake Water Co. (13 Cal. 306.)

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

Johnson v. Alameda County, 14 Cal. 106 (Cal. 1859).

14 Cal. 106 (Johnson v. Alameda County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Maescher v. Sammann
248 P. 537 (California Court of Appeal, 1926)
In Re Estate of Simmons
143 P. 697 (California Supreme Court, 1914)
Martin v. Tyler
25 L.R.A. 838 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1894)
Andrews v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.
22 Wis. 288 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1867)
Fox v. Western Pac. R.R.
31 Cal. 538 (California Supreme Court, 1867)