Craig v. Earl
| Decision Date | 10 August 1961 |
| Citation | 15 Cal.Rptr. 207,194 Cal.App.2d 652 |
| Parties | Thomas T. CRAIG and Frances Marve Craig, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Guy C. EARL, Jr., et al., Defendants, Harlan B. Griswold, D. L. Caldwell and W. N. Davis, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 6440. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
George Stahlman, Sr., Fallbrook, and Robert S. Walwick, Oceanside, for appellants.
Jones & Mealey and Michael C. Mealey, Escondido, for respondents.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a summary judgment in favor of certain defendants. The question on appeal is whether the record supports the conclusion of the trial court that the plaintiffs' case presents no triable issue of fact. The second amended complaint, upon which issue was joined, is directed against Rainbow Municipal Water District, and Guy C. Earl, Jr., Harlan B. Griswold, D. L. Caldwell, W. N. Davis and Ross Dailey 'as individuals, not as directors of Rainbow Municipal Water District,' and alleges that the plaintiffs are the owners of certain real property; that the 'defendants, and each of them, without authority, permission or consent of plaintiffs, placed or caused to be placed upon said property, certain heavy equipment and quantities of water pipe for the purpose of building a water pipeline over and across the property of the plaintiffs; and for the construction and maintenance of a roadway paralleling the said water pipeline over and across the property of the plaintiffs'; that the 'defendants have at all times refused, and now refuse, to remove said water pipeline and to regrade the premises and to restore them to their natural state as they existed prior to the invasion of the plaintiffs' property by the defendants for the purpose as hereinabove alleged, but on the contrary, defendants threatened to continue to cause and to permit the said water pipeline and the roadways paralleling same to remain upon the plaintiffs' premises'; that the plaintiffs have been damaged by these trespasses; and that the defendants acted maliciously. The complaint prays for compensatory and punitive damages and for an injunction. All of the defendants answered; denied the foregoing allegations of the complaint; and alleged a number of affirmative defenses. The defendants Griswold, Caldwell and Davis moved for a summary judgment and supported their motion by affidavits. The plaintiffs filed counter-affidavits in reply; the trial court heard the motion; granted the same; and rendered judgment accordingly.
From the record before us it appears that sometime prior to April 30, 1957, the defendant Earl, Jr., constructed a water pipeline and a parallel roadway across the plaintiffs' land; that the defendant Rainbow Municipal Water District purchased this pipeline and roadway from the defendant Earl, Jr., and that at the time of such purchase the defendants Griswold, Caldwell and Davis were members of the board of directors of the water district. The moving defendants, in their affidavits, specifically and in detail denied the doing of any of the acts with which they were charged in the second amended complaint; stated that they had been members of the board of directors of the water district; and also stated that in their capacities as directors, their 'only dealing or contact with the alleged pipe lines and roadways was participation in the decision of the Board of Directors to accept ownership' thereof on behalf of the water district, and that such acceptance was pursuant to an ordinance adopted by the district.
The counter-affidavits filed by the plaintiffs stated in substance that the defendants Griswold, Caldwell and Davis had participated in the formation of the water district, and after its formation acted as members of its board of directors; that they owned property within said district; that their participation in the formation of the district and their action as members of the board of directors was for their individual benefit; that certain specifically described transactions by the water district increased the value of the land of these defendants and unjustly enriched them; that the defendant Earl, Jr., had no easement in the plaintiffs' property at the time he constructed the subject...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pacific Architects Collaborative v. State of California
...76 Cal.Rptr. 680; Miller & Lux, Inc. v. Bank of America (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 719, 728, 28 Cal.Rptr. 401; Craig v. Earl (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 652, 655, 15 Cal.Rptr. 207.) "In determining whether triable issues are presented, the court may not consider the allegations of the complaint except......
-
Wiler v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
...76 Cal.Rptr. 680; Miller & Lux, Inc. v. Bank of America (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 719, 728, 28 Cal.Rptr. 401; Craig v. Earl (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 652, 655, 15 Cal.Rptr. 207.)" "In determining whether triable issues are presented, the court may not consider the allegations of the complaint excep......
-
Aarts Productions, Inc. v. Crocker National Bank
...conflicts outside the scope of the pleadings; counter-declarations are no substitute for amended pleadings. (Craig v. Earl (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 652, 656, 15 Cal.Rptr. 207; Vanderbilt Growth Fund, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 628, 635-636, 164 Cal.Rptr. 621, and cases there ......
-
Larsen v. Johannes
...the issues presented on the motion for summary judgment are triable and whether a genuine cause of action exists (Craig v. Earl (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 652, 655, 15 Cal.Rptr. 207, and cases cited; Michelman v. Frye (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 698, 48 Cal.Rptr. 142) as well as to determine the admis......