City of South San Francisco v. Berry
| Decision Date | 17 September 1953 |
| Citation | 260 P.2d 1045,120 Cal.App.2d 252 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO v. BERRY et ux. Civ. 15508. |
Richard P. Lyons, South San Francisco, for appellant.
R. A. Rapsey, San Bruno, for respondents.
According to the amended complaint, the County of San Mateo, in June, 1945, issued to defendant Luther E. Berry a permit to construct a single family residence on a certain parcel of land which by and pursuant to the land use ordinances of the county had been classified as residential and limited to single family dwellings; on August 19, 1946, this parcel of land, with other lands, was annexed to and made a part of the City of South San Francisco; the permittee and his wife Christine Berry have constructed a building for use by more than one family and have permitted three families to occupy it, in violation of the county land use ordinances; and defendants have constructed an additional building on this land, a building now occupied by a family. It is not alleged that the city has a similar or any ordinance on this subject.
Upon the basis of those facts the city seeks a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the buildings on this parcel of land as a place of residence for more than one family, and an order requiring the defendants to so remodel these buildings that they will be incapable of use as a place of residence for more than one family.
The city has appealed from the judgment of dismissal rendered after the sustaining of a general demurrer to the amended complaint and plaintiff's failure further to amend.
The judgment must be affirmed. The police power has been given the county and the city, respectively, for exercise only 'within its limits'. State Const. art. XI, § 11. When the land in suit was annexed to plaintiff city it left the territorial jurisdiction of the county, ceased to be 'within its limits'. For various applications of this principle, see Petition of Sanitary Board of East Fruitvale Sanitary Dist., 158 Cal. 453, 111 P. 368; San Francisco-Oakland Terminal Rys. v. County of Alameda, 66 Cal.App. 77, 225 P. 304; In re Knight, 55 Cal.App. 511, 203 P. 777; City of El Cajon v. Heath, 86 Cal.App.2d 530, 196 P.2d 81; 18 Cal.Jur. 833, Mun.Corp., § 138.
Plaintiff relies on this statement in 8 McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, 3rd edition, page 38, section 25.14: 'it has been said that zoning imposes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ben Lomond, Inc. v. City of Idaho Falls
...892) Louisville & Jefferson County Planning & Zoning Commission v. Fortner, 243 S.W.2d 492 (Ky.App.1951); City of South San Francisco v. Berry, 120 Cal.App.2d 252, 260 P.2d 1045 (1953); Ellish v. Village of Suffern, 30 A.D.2d 554, 291 N.Y.S.2d 178 (1968); Farley v. DeMuth, 399 S.W.2d 469 (K......
-
Teixeira v. Cnty. of Alameda
...police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws."); City of S. San Francisco v. Berry, 120 Cal. App. 2d 252, 253, 260 P.2d 1045 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1953) (explaining that when unincorporated land is annexed by a city it leaves "the territorial juris......
-
City of Dublin v. County of Alameda
...art. XI, § 7; Stirling v. Board of Supervisors (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 184, 187, 121 Cal.Rptr. 435; City of South San Francisco v. Berry (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 252, 253, 260 P.2d 1045.) Appellants concede that to the extent Measure D appears to require incorporated cities to impose a surcharge ......
-
Burns Intern. Sec. v. County of L.A.
...and must be confined in their application only to the city or county adopting them" (italics added)]; City of South San Francisco v. Berry (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 252, 253, 260 P.2d 1045 ["The police power has been given the county and the city respectively, for exercise only `within its limi......