Los Angeles, Pasadena, & Glendale Railway Co. v. Rumpp

Citations

• 94 Cal. 432
• 29 P. 872
• 1892 Cal. LEXIS 704

Syllabus

<p>Eminent Domain — Cost of Fencing Railroad — Finding against Evidence. — In an action by a railroad company to condemn land for a right of way, where the only evidence given at the trial as to the cost of building a lawful fence along the line of the proposed railroad was thirty cents per foot, and it appeared that the length of the right of way was one thousand and one feet, a finding that the fence would cost one hundred dollars is not sustained by the evidence.</p> <p>Id. —Necessity of Fence—Inspection by Judge — Findings. —The fact that the judge, during the trial, by stipulation of the parties, visited the premises for the purpose of making a personal inspection, and that he might have seen that there were natural obstructions which would amount to a fence, or that, under the circumstances, no fence was necessary or even practicable, as the proposed road-bed was the wash of a creek, cannot be considered, where the fact is not found that no fence would be necessary, and other evidence shows its necessity, and the finding as to the cost of a fence concedes its necessity.</p> <p>Id.—Assessment of Cost of Fencing — Appeal by Land-owner — Prejudicial Error. — Although the assessment of the cost of fencing, in a proceeding by a railroad to condemn a right of way, is made to enforce a duty imposed by law, and not as damages to the land-owner for an injury to his land, still it is a duty in which the land-owner has a special and substantial interest, and an error committed in the assessment of the cost of the fence is a prejudicial error, of which the land-owner has the right to complain.</p>