Andrews

Andrews v. City of Piedmont

Good Law
100 Cal. App. 700·1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 416·281 P. 78
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 24, 1929Docket No. 6624.California497 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

The plaintiff commenced an action to obtain a judgment of declaratory relief. The defendant answered and a trial was had before the court sitting without a jury. The court made findings in favor of the plaintiff and from a judgment entered thereon the defendant has appealed and has brought up a typewritten record. The plaintiff sought a decree that a municipal zoning ordinance is invalid.

The defendant claims the court had no authority to declare invalid a municipal ordinance. It quotes section 1060 of the Code of Civil Procedure as follows: “Any person interested under a deed, will or other written instrument, or under a contract, or who desires a declaration of his rights or duties with respect to another, or in respect to, in, over or upon property. ...” Then it contends that the power of the court is confined to construing private writings. It cites the Kansas statute and calls attention to the fact that the latter contains words expressly enumerating statutes and municipal ordinances. The vice in this reasoning is the failure to note that our statute is written in the disjunctive. The power is manifold. It includes the power to construe private writings as defendant…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.