gno.law

County of Los Angeles v. Rindge Company

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 3261. · 1921-06-11 · Published · 200 P. 32 · 53 Cal. App. 796 · 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 434

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent, v. RINDGE COMPANY (A Corporation), Et Al., Appellants

Proceeding
appeal from an order
Trial court
Superior Court of Los Angeles County
Trial judge
Paul J. McCormick
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
civil
Panel
Shaw (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Shaw

SHAW, J.

In a proceeding against defendants for the condemnation of a strip of land for use as a highway, the plaintiff had an interlocutory judgment, followed by a final order and judgment condemning the property. Thereafter, under and in accordance with the provisions of section 1254 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court made an order under and by virtue of which plaintiff was authorized to take immediate possession and use of the property, from which order defendants have appealed.

In the case of Adamson v. County of Los Angeles, 52 Cal. App. 125, [198 Pac. 52], the plaintiff therein, alleging the order was void, sought to have the county enjoined from the prosecution of work in the construction of the road. From an adverse judgment rendered by the superior court, Adamson appealed. The court of appeal held the order was valid and that no ground existed for the attack made thereon. The determination of the court there had *797 must be deemed decisive of the question. Upon the authority of that case and what is said by this court in County of Los Angeles v. Rindge Co. et al., ante, p. 166, [200 Pac. 27], the order appealed from is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by