Crozier

County of Sonoma v. Crozier

Good Law
118 Cal. 680·1897 Cal. LEXIS 831·50 P. 845
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 2, 1897S. F. No. 662California704 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Temple, J.

This is a proceeding to condemn a strip of land for a private way, and the ease is presented on a demurrer to the complaint. The demurrer was overruled, and the defendant did not answer. Judgment went against him, and he now appeals, resting on his demurrer.

The complaint avers the filing of a sufficient petition and the giving and approval of the bond, and that afterward such proceedings were had that on the ninth day of October, 1895, the board of supervisors of said county, by order drdy given and made, directed the district attorney, etc.

The complaint fails to state: .1. That viewers were appointed; 2. That they proceeded to lay out the road: 3. That they made or filed any report; 4. That the report was approved; or 5. That damages awarded had been tendered to defendant and refused by him.

The respondent contends that these allegations are not necessary because section 2G90 of the Political Code makes the order directing suit to be brought conclusive as to the regularity thereof, and directs the court then to proceed without reference to the proceedings before the board.

But it must appear that the board had jurisdiction to make the order, otherwise it is simply waste…

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.