Darms

City of Los Angeles v. Darms

Good Law
1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 906·92 Cal. App. 501·268 P. 487
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 12, 1928Docket No. 6339.California709 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nourse, J.

Plaintiff sued to condemn certain land for public purposes, a portion of which was claimed by defendants Warden and Danziger, the former as a -purchaser of a bond which was a lien for public improvements, and the latter as owner by mesne conveyances. Judgment was in favor of the city and, among other things, awarded damages for the taking of the land claimed by these two defendants in the sum of $353; damages to remainder of parcel by said taking $94; and damages to improvements on the parcel $252. By stipulation of counsel the issue as to the ownership of the land was specially set for trial and special findings and judgment' were made and entered quieting the title to this parcel in defendant Danziger, subject to a lien thereon in favor of defendant Warden in the sum of $95.38. The defendant Warden has appealed on a typewritten record.

In her opening brief she advances two grounds for a reversal: That the court was without jurisdiction to try the issue of title to the entire parcel in a condemnation suit, and, that the evidence does not support the finding that the party- upon whom appellant served notice of sale was not the occupant of the premises.

The first point is…

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.