Mahoney

Mahoney v. Spring Valley Water Works Co.

Good Law
52 Cal. 159
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1877No. 4586California1,323 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

McKinstry, J.

The award is a final judgment. The Spring Valley Water Works thereby acquired a right to and an interest in the property itself, as against the plaintiffs and their co-owners, and the latter to that extent are deprived of the use, enjoyment, and jus disponendi of their property, without just compensation, unless they have a corresponding right and interest in the award.

The plaintiffs and their co-owners have no option to refuse to receive the award, and upon its payment the whole property vests—without further act of theirs—in the corporation, and it must be equally bound to comply with the judgment.

There must be a mutuality of obligation; else all such proceedings of condemnation would be unconstitutional and void, and beyond the power of the Legislature. (South Western R. Co. v. Southern & A. Telegraph Co. 46 Ga. 43 ; 12 Am. Rep. A. M. R. 585; Walther v. Warner, 25 Mo. 277 ; Wilkerson v. Buchanan Co. 12 Mo. 328 ; Hampton v. Coffin, 4 N. H. 517; Harrington v. County Commrs. 22 Pick. 268 ; Inhabitants Westbrook v. North, 2 Greenl. 179; Commrs. &c. v. Carey, 1 Ohio St. 463 .)

Delos Lake, also for the Appellants.

. Chas. N Fox, for Eespondent.

1. A water company, formed under…

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.