Severy v. Central Pacific Railroad

51 Cal. 194
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1875
DocketNo. 3454
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 51 Cal. 194 (Severy v. Central Pacific Railroad) 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
Severy v. Central Pacific Railroad, 51 Cal. 194 (Cal. 1875).

Opinion

By the Court:

The third finding of the court below, so far as it states that lots two and fourteen “are bounded on the west by Sacramento street,” in the conveyance from Webber to plaintiff, is contrary to the evidence.

One line of the description in the deed is: “Thence along the easterly line of Sacramento street one hundred and fifty feet;” and no other language is employed which affects or modifies the natural interpretation of that above quoted.

It is very clear, therefore, that the parties to the instrument intended that the lots should run up to the eastern line and not to the middle of the street.

Thus construing the instrument the plaintiff alleges no cause of action in his complaint, except a claim for special damages by reason of a nuisance caused by the obstruction of a public street or highway.

In this view, the court below erred in overruling defendant’s objections to testimony as to the market value of plaintiff’s lots and as to the effect of the building of the railroad on such market value. (Hopkins v. W. P. R. R. Co., 50 Cal. 190.)

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

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

Related

Sheffet v. County of Los Angeles
3 Cal. App. 3d 720 (California Court of Appeal, 1970)
Everett v. Bosch
241 Cal. App. 2d 648 (California Court of Appeal, 1966)
Speer v. Blasker
195 Cal. App. 2d 155 (California Court of Appeal, 1961)
City of Redlands v. Nickerson
188 Cal. App. 2d 118 (California Court of Appeal, 1961)
Taliaferro v. Salyer
328 P.2d 799 (California Court of Appeal, 1958)
Spaulding v. Cameron
239 P.2d 625 (California Supreme Court, 1952)
United States v. 5.324 Acres of Land
79 F. Supp. 748 (S.D. California, 1948)
McPherson v. Monegan
187 P.2d 542 (Montana Supreme Court, 1947)
Biber v. O'Brien
32 P.2d 425 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Warwick v. City of Waxahachie
288 S.W. 516 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Warden v. S. Pasadena Realty & Improvement Co.
174 P. 26 (California Supreme Court, 1918)
Berton v. All Persons, Etc.
170 P. 151 (California Supreme Court, 1917)
Betcher v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
124 N.W. 1096 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1910)
Cabbell v. Williams
127 Ala. 320 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1899)
Alameda Macadamizing Co. v. Williams
12 P. 530 (California Supreme Court, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 Cal. 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/severy-v-central-pacific-railroad-cal-1875.