Monterey County v. Cushing

Good Law
1890 Cal. LEXIS 718·83 Cal. 507·23 P. 700
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 31, 1890No. 12335California2,289 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hayne, J.

— This was a proceeding to condemn land for the purposes of a road. The trial court gave judgment for the defendant, but subsequently made an order granting a new trial; and the defendant appeals from that order.

1. At the trial the plaintiff put in evidence the preliminary proceedings before the board of supervisors, the report of the viewers, and the proceedings confirm *509 ing such report, but gave no evidence of the value of the property sought to be condemned, or of the damage resulting from the segregation. The findings show that the court, in deciding the case, did not consider that the proceedings mentioned constituted any evidence of value, etc.; and it is to be inferred that it was of the opinion that the burden of proof as to value was upon the plaintiff. One of the grounds of the motion for a new trial was the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision as to value; and upon well-settled principles, it must be assumed that this was one of the grounds upon which the motion was granted.

The appellant makes a preliminary objection to the consideration of this ground, because, as she alleges, it was not set forth in the notice of intention. But the statement…

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.