This action was brought to enjoin respondent city of Stockton (and its council) from erecting a firehouse upon one of its parks. Findings were filed, disposing of all issues in favor of respondents, and judgment was entered denying an injunction. Plaintiffs appeal from said judgment.

As we view it, the only question of any merit arises out of the construction of the deed by which the city acquired the property, and the following provision thereof:

It is the contention of appellants that a firehouse is “of like character” as the preceding uses mentioned.

The rule governing the situation is thus expressed in 6 Cal. Jur. sec. 163, pages 252, 253, 254 and 255:

It is obvious that the parties contemplated different and other uses at the end of twenty-five years. In a paragraph of the deed preceding the one quoted above, we find the following language:

In the clause first quoted above, the use after the expiration of twenty-five years is not limited to park purposes. That restriction is eliminated, and it may be reasonably assumed that thereafter the city might devote the property “to any public benefit or use that in the judgment of the then properly vested powers of the municipality may deem most wise for public benefit.” Then follows the language which gave rise to this action. Is a firehouse “of like character” with the uses interdicted Í We think not. In disposing of this phase of the case we adopt the following excerpt from the opinion of the trial judge:

It is the contention of appellants that the uses prohibited are structures used by the city government in conducting the administration of its governmental affairs, and within that group should be placed a “firehouse.” We believe that the phrase “of like character” was intended to refer not to any classification of governmental functions, but to any actual similarity in a proposed use to each or any of the uses prohibited. Otherwise, the granting of the right to the city to devote the property to any use or public benefit would be practically meaningless.

We find nothing which requires further discussion.

The judgment is affirmed.

Thompson, P. J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied January 29, 1942.