Home/California Court of Appeal/Morse v. Miller

Morse v. Miller

275 P.2d 545, 128 Cal. App. 2d 237, 1954 Cal. App. LEXIS 1457
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedOctober 20, 1954
DocketCiv. 8404
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 275 P.2d 545 (Morse v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Morse v. Miller, 275 P.2d 545, 128 Cal. App. 2d 237, 1954 Cal. App. LEXIS 1457 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954).

Opinion

SCHOTTKY, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment decreeing that certain real property owned by defendants and appellants has been dedicated to public use for beach and athletic field purposes, and is also subject to easements for similar use in favor of plaintiff and respondent and other property owners on whose behalf he sued. Said judgment also perpetually enjoined defendants from interfering with either the public or private use of the property. 1

The real property here involved now consists of three parcels, two of them forming what is known as the “beach,” and *239 the third comprising the “athletic field.” The beach property, now divided into two parcels, is bounded on the west by the low water line of Clear Lake, and on the east by the center line of a road known as “Lakeshore Road. ’’ This property extends along the road for a distance of approximately 1,120 feet, and its northern and southern boundaries (from the road to the lake) are approximately 450 and 230 feet long, respectively. The athletic field property lies just east of the beach, the center line of Lakeshore Road forming a common boundary between them. Its frontage along this road is about 700 feet, and it is bounded on the other three sides by streets. These properties originally were a part of a larger acreage, consisting of two tracts aggregating about 330 acres, which Charles L. Austin acquired in the early 1920’s. At least part of this acreage, including the beach and athletic field properties, is located in the Second Supervisorial District of Lake County. There is no incorporated area within the district.

The following map [see page 240], which was introduced in evidence, will serve to illustrate the location of the properties here involved.

After Austin acquired the acreage it appears that portions of it were offered for sale and sold to the public. Six tracts had been subdivided, and maps of them had been recorded when, in 1928, Austin, who was an engineer, prepared a composite map showing the subdivided tracts and also showing the beach and. athletic field properties. This last map was not recorded, but it is important because of its use in connection with the sale of lots thereafter.

It also appears that the beach and athletic field properties were used for resort purposes. Without detailing all of the improvements, it may be noted that a dance hall, an entertainment center, and a bath house were erected on the beach property, the beach itself was improved and beach and lifesaving equipment installed, and a grandstand was built on the athletic field property. Although the dance hall and entertainment center (pinball games, etc.) were operated for profit, and food and other refreshments were sold and bathing suits rented, it is apparent that the resort was operated primarily as a promotional venture to attract prospective purchasers of lots to the premises. Such attractions as pageants, rodeos, and athletic contests were held at the athletic field for the entertainment of visitors and without cost to them. The beach proper and the athletic field were open to the public for recreational purposes and no charge was made, even for the use *240 of the bath house. This free use of the beach and athletic field was one of the inducements used in promoting the sale of lots.

Austin was succeeded by a corporation, the Austin Resort and Land Company, which he formed for that purpose. The trial court found that the corporation acquired the property prior to December 27, 1927, and Austin testified that the corporation was formed in 1925. He also testified that he sold “property" (lots) in the Clear Lake Woodlands “tract" (see map, Plaintiff’s Bx. 2) prior to 1928, and that at the time he *241 sold property in that tract the corporation owned all of the property. There is also a copy of a letter in evidence, from Austin to Goldberg, his sales manager in Los Angeles. (Plaintiff’s Ex. 16.) This letter is dated December 27, 1927, and refers to a proposed agreement between “Austin Resort and Land Company” and Austin Athletic and Country Club, the latter being an unincorporated association comprised of lot owners in the Athletic and Country Club Tract. The agreement in question was to protect lot buyers in their use of the beach, boat harbor and athletic field, and Austin testified that his attorney later prepared such an agreement and that its execution by Austin Resort and Land Company was authorized by that company’s board of directors.

*240

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

Related

Friends of Martin's Beach v. Martin's Beach 1
California Court of Appeal, 2016
Friends of Martin's Beach v. Martin's Beach 1 LLC
201 Cal. Rptr. 3d 516 (California Court of Appeals, 1st District, 2016)
County of Los Angeles v. Berk
605 P.2d 381 (California Supreme Court, 1980)
Richmond Ramblers Motorcycle Club v. Western Title Guaranty Co.
47 Cal. App. 3d 747 (California Court of Appeal, 1975)
Gion v. City of Santa Cruz
465 P.2d 50 (California Supreme Court, 1970)
E. A. Robey & Co. v. City Title Insurance Co.
261 Cal. App. 2d 517 (California Court of Appeal, 1968)
Morse v. E. A. Robey & Co.
214 Cal. App. 2d 464 (California Court of Appeal, 1963)
McKinney v. Ruderman
203 Cal. App. 2d 109 (California Court of Appeal, 1962)
Marangi v. Domenici
326 P.2d 527 (California Court of Appeal, 1958)
Gunn v. Fontes
306 P.2d 928 (California Court of Appeal, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
275 P.2d 545, 128 Cal. App. 2d 237, 1954 Cal. App. LEXIS 1457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morse-v-miller-calctapp-1954.