City of Long Beach v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 May 1955
• Citation: 283 P.2d 1036,44 Cal.2d 599
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: CITY OF LONG BEACH, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY CO., a corporation, Defendant-Appellant. L. A. 22899.

Page 1036

283 P.2d 1036

44 Cal.2d 599

CITY OF LONG BEACH, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY CO., a corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

L. A. 22899.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

May 27, 1955.

C. W. Cornell, San Pedro, E. D. Yeomans, Roger M. Sullivan and Randolph Karr, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Walhfred Jacobson, City Atty., and Joseph B. Lamb, Asst. City Atty., Long Beach, for respondent.

SHENK, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment granting a nominal award of one dollar in a condemnation proceeding.

The defendant Pacific Electric Railway Company, hereinafter referred to as the company, is an interurban electric railway corporation. It has a right of way for its tracks along Long Beach Boulevard, a street running north and south in the city of Long Beach and intersecting Willow Street, a street running east and west. It owns an easement for 'railroad purposes' on a tract of land located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Long Beach Boulevard and Willow Street. Beginning at Willow Street the easement runs more or less parallel with the company's tracks on Long Beach Boulevard. Nowhere in the record does a precise description of the easement appear, but such a description is not essential to the determination of this appeal.

On January 30, 1951, the Long Beach City Council adopted a resolution of intention to widen Willow Street by moving its northern line twenty feet further north over a portion of the area here involved. The strip sought for widening Willow Street was a part of the company's easement but did not cross its tracks.

The company leased part of its easement, including the twenty foot strip, to a lumber company which operated and owned a building on the property. For the purpose of providing freight transportation for its lessee, the company maintained a spur track on the leased portion of the easement. For its own purposes, the company maintained two poles and connecting overhead facilities on the strip of land in question. At the time of the trial the lumber company building had been removed. Counsel for the company stated that the building removal resulted from negotiations between the city and the lumber company.

By this proceeding, commenced on February 19, 1951, the City of Long Beach sought to obtain an easement for street purposes over the twenty foot strip. The dispute is over the amount of compensation. The city's theory would require the payment of a nominal sum only for the proposed easement. The company maintains that it is entitled to recover the value of the property taken and the cost of moving and relocating the poles and overhead facilities required by the taking. It was stipulated by and between the parties: 'That if the property over which plaintiff seeks to acquire an easement for street purposes is to be valued by the Court at other than a nominal valuation * * * the value thereof shall be fixed at the sum of * * * $2,150.00' and 'That the widening of Willow Street as proposed will require relocation of two poles and connecting overhead facilities of * * * Pacific Electric * * * at a cost of * * * $914, but will not require any other structural changes in the facilities of the defendants.'

The trial court found that public convenience and necessity required the widening of Willow Street by the twenty foot strip; that the city sought the easement for such use; that this was a public use; that subject to the right of the company to operate a railway over the strip the city was entitled to be awarded an easement over the strip; that 'the use of said property for street purposes as proposed by the plaintiff will not interfere with its use for railroad tracks and the railroad can exist with the street in place as proposed, except that the area available for use by the defendant Pacific Electric Railway Company for purposes other than railroad tracks is reduced by the amount of area to be taken for a street'; that the company is entitled to one dollar for damages because of the taking of the easement, and that it is not entitled to any damages by reason of the structural changes required by the taking. Judgment was entered accordingly.

The city contends that a public body should be required to pay nominal damages only for an extension of a street across a railroad right of way and that this rule also applies to a widening. The city argues that since the company does not own the fee of the property here involved the entire extent of its easement is a ...