White

White v. City of San Diego

Good Law
126 Cal. App. 501·14 P.2d 1062
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 28, 1932Docket Nos. 915, 916, 917, 918, 919.California2,410 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Scovel, J.

The above-entitled actions, all based on analogous facts, were consolidated for trial in the lower court. Judgment was entered in favor of defendants in all cases, from which judgments the several plaintiffs have appealed. The appeals have also been consolidated for hearing in this court.

From the transcript, it appears that in 1926 the City of San Diego was contemplating the construction of a dam on the San Dieguito River, in San Diego County, for the impounding of water to be diverted from the watershed to the city and used for domestic purposes. It was therefore necessary that the City purchase or condemn the lands of the riparian owners lying below the dam site. Negotiations for the purchase thereof were entered into, and as a result the option agreements upon which these various actions are based were executed. With the exception of the amounts set forth in such agreements they áre, for the purpose of these appeals, identical. The Prentice option is typical. It recites the City’s contemplated construction of the dam, known as the Sutherland dam, the pendency of an application by the City before the department of water rights for the right to appropriate and divert water from…

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.