Lagiss

Defendant appeals from a judgment in a condemnation action awarding him $10,000 for property condemned for highway purposes.

Questions Presented

1. Did defendant stipulate that the taking of the entire ' parcel was necessary?

2. Did defendant’s answer plead a cause of defense ?

3. Did the court err in denying defendant’s offer of proof that the Highway Commission was acting in bad faith ?

4. Did the filing of the third amended answer in effect waive error in sustaining of demurrer to prior answers ?

Record

After adoption by the California Highway Commission of the resolution of public interest and necessity required by section 102, Streets and Highways Code, this action was brought to condemn for highway purposes (among lands of other defendants not interested in this appeal), a parcel of land in Contra Costa County belonging to defendant. Defendant answered, denying that the whole of the parcel was needed by plaintiff for highway or any public purpose. The answer set up a description of a portion of the parcel which defendant alleged only was needed. He further alleged that the commission in passing its resolution acted in bad faith and abused its discretion in that it…