Anderson v. Souza
Decision Date | 24 April 1952 |
Citation | 38 Cal.2d 825,243 P.2d 497 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | ANDERSON et al. v. SOUZA et al. Sac. 6136. |
Donald B. Fowler and H. E. Gleason, Turlock, for appellants.
Brown, Brown & Bacon, Ralph M. Brown, William E. Bacon and T. M. Norton, all of Modesto, for respondents.
This appeal is from a judgment enjoining the operation of an airport and awarding damages. After decision by the District Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, a hearing was granted by this court to give further consideration to the important issues involved. We have concluded that the opinion of the District Court of Appeal, prepared by Mr. Justice Van Dyke, correctly discussed and decided the issues presented. That opinion, with additions and deletions, is adopted as the opinion of this court. As modified, the opinion is as follows:
homes, but that only six plaintiffs were affected by the conduct of the student pilots and that, as to the six, such conduct placed their lives and property in great jeopardy and caused them to fear greatly for their property, their lives and the lives of their loved ones; that the real property of the same six plaintiffs by reason of said conditions has depreciated in value, but that this was not true as to the other plaintiffs; that plaintiffs have often requested and demanded of defendants that they cease operating the airport and the airplanes in the manner found, but that defendants have continued to operate them in said manner continuously from April, 1946, to the time of trial; that more airplanes are operating from the field each month and that still more airplanes will operate from the field in the future; that defendants by their acts have caused irreparable injury to plaintiffs and that irreparable injury will be done to them in the future if the defendants continue with their acts as found; that none of the plaintiffs have been damaged except the same six and that they have been damaged as follows, V. E. Anderson and wife jointly in the sum of $500, Arvid G. Anderson and wife jointly in the same sum, and Jack Harlan and wife jointly in the same sum; that plaintiffs have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law. As conclusions of law from the facts found judgment was ordered: 1. Enjoining and restraining the defendants from operating the airport on the premises described in the complaint; 2. For damages in the sum of $500 to each of the three couples named above. Judgment was entered accordingly. Motion for new trial was made and denied. From the judgment the defendants have taken this appeal.
'We shall discuss the contentions of appellants seriatim as they advance them in their briefs. Appellants first attack the finding of the court that appellants Souza and wife, along with appellant Earlandson, operate the airport. Herein it is claimed on behalf of Souza that it is Earlandson who operates the airport and that Souza, while he owns the property where the airport is located, has leased the airport to Earlandson, and that, therefore, under such cases as Gould v. Stafford, 91 Cal. 146, 27 P. 543, Wiersma v. City of Long Beach, 41 Cal.Capp.2d 8, 106 P.2d 45, Mundt v. Nowlin, 44 Cal.App.2d 414, 112 P.2d 782, and Meloy v. City of Santa Monica, 124 Cal.App. 622, 12 P.2d 1072, the nuisance complained of is created and maintained by Earlandson alone. These cases lay down the well-known rule that a landlord is not responsible to other parties for the misconduct or injurious acts of his tenant to whom his estate has been leased for a lawful and proper purpose when there is no nuisance or illegal structure upon it at the time of the leasing. We think, however, that in view of the evidence here this rule and the cases declaring it are not controlling, for it was shown that Souza owned the land, constructed the field, obtained the county permit, flew his own plane from and to the field and retained portions of the field's facilities, that is, the hangars and tie-down space for which he collected rent. Earlandson's rights were to operate his flying school, sell gas and repair planes. Earlandson, therefore, was not in sole charge of the field and it is a fair inference from the evidence that Souza at least joined with Earlandson in permitting public use of the field, and, in short, so participated in the operation of the field that the court's findings that he and Earlandson operated the field are substantially supported by the evidence.
'There is next attacked the finding that 'many airplanes' operating from the airport were owned and operated by appellants Souza and Earlandson as being contrary to the evidence. We think this finding is sufficiently supported by Souza's testimony that he owned and operated a plane and by Earlandson's testimony that he owned and operated four airplanes, plus one which he operated for another owner. Whether such numbers constitute many or few is a comparative matter, but Earlandson's planes were shown to have been greatly used in the conduct of his air school and in view of the fact of dual control and operation of the port by the two men we find nothing erroneous in the challenged finding * * *.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Agee
...Culture Hotel (W.D.N.Y.1936) 14 F.Supp. 977, 982-983; c.f. Rest.2d Torts, §§ 159, com. m, 652B, 822; see generally Anderson v. Souza (1952) 38 Cal.2d 825, 838, 243 P.2d 497; Annot. (1977) 79 A.L.R.3d 253.)13 The primacy of general warrants as the archetypical abuse of government power engen......
-
Aaron v. City of Los Angeles
...federal law, when such relief is appropriate.' (Id., at p. 594, 39 Cal.Rptr. at p. 716, 394 P.2d at p. 555. See also Anderson v. Souza, 38 Cal.2d 825, 838--839, 243 P.2d 497.) Our Supreme Court faced this problem a second time in Nestle v. City of Santa Monica, 6 Cal.3d 920, 101 Cal.Rptr. 5......
-
B. C. Cotton, Inc. v. Voss
...the exercise of the police power. (See Fairrington v. Dyke Water Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 198, 200, 323 P.2d 1001; Anderson v. Souza (1952) 38 Cal.2d 825, 840-841, 243 P.2d 497.) The Legislature is not compelled to permit plaintiffs to produce naturally colored cotton simply because that activi......
-
Serna, In re
...over the rights and property of others." (Fretz v. Burke (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 741, 746, 55 Cal.Rptr. 879, 883; cf. Anderson v. Souza (1952) 38 Cal.2d 825, 834, 243 P.2d 497; Wind v. Herbert (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 276, 285, 8 Cal.Rptr. With this definition in mind, Judge Woolpert's decision ......
-
Appendix II Evidence Code
...existing law, the statement is read into evidence but may not itself be introduced in evidence by its proponent. See Anderson v. Souza, 38 Cal.2d 825, 243 P.2d 497 (1952). The adverse party, however, may introduce the writing as evidence. Cf. Horowitz v. Fitch, 216 Cal.App.2d 303, 30 Cal.Rp......