Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Shasta Dam Area Public Utility Dist.
| Decision Date | 13 December 1956 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a corporation, and Southern Pacific Company, a corporation, on behalf of themselves and all other Taxpayers of the Shasta Dam Area Public Utility District, County of Shasta, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SHASTA DAM AREA PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT, a public corporation, W. S. Price, Jonathan C. Tibbits, Matt Rumboltz, Hal Craig, Bruno W. Kloss, members of the Board of Directors of said District, Matt Rumboltz, Treasurer, and Jonathan C. Tibbits, Clerk of said District, Defendants and Respondents. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a corporation, on behalf of itself and all other Taxpayers of the Shasta Dam Area Public Utility District, County of Shasta, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SHASTA DAM AREA PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT, a public corporation, W. S. Price, Jonathan C. Tibbits, Matt Rumboltz, Hal Craig, Bruno W. Kloss, members of the Board of Directors of said District, and Jonathan C. Tibbits, Clerk of said District, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 9167, 9168. |
William S. Love and William T. Bagley, San Francisco, for appellant Pacific Gas & Elec. Co.
Robert L. Pierce, San Francisco, for appellant Southern Pac. Co.
Daniel S. Carlton, Redding, for respondent.
Respondents in each of the above entitled actions filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in each case upon the ground that the appeal in each case is sham, frivolous and without merit, and taken for the purpose of delay. Upon the hearing of the motions it was stipulated by the parties that the motions and the merits of the appeal be submitted together and that additional points and authorities be filed by respective counsel.
The action involved in case No. 9168 is one to enjoin defendants from purchasing electric energy from the Bureau of Reclamation.
The action involved in case No. 9167 is one to enjoin the sale of bonds, the proceeds of which are to be used for the distribution of electric power to be received under a contract with the Bureau of Reclamation.
The gravamen of appellants' cause of action in each case is that respondent District is without power or authority to purchase electric energy from the Bureau of Reclamation and that therefore the purpose for which the bonds are to be sold is illegal.
Respondents in each case pleaded a prior action between the same parties in which the issuance of the bonds was authorized, and in which action the judgment was affirmed by this court. 135 Cal.App.2d 463, 287 P.2d 841. In the prior action appellants sought unsuccessfully to enjoin the issuance of the bonds here involved.
The trial court found in the action involved on the appeal in 3 Civil No. 9167:
'* * * that thereupon the plaintiff Pacific Gas and Electric Company, for and on behalf of itself and all other taxpayers in said District, commenced an action in the above entitled Superior Court numbered 19529 therein, and wherein it alleged that said District had no power to contract with the United States Government or any branch or agency thereof for the purchase of a supply of electrical energy with which to energize its proposed electrical distribution system; that said plaintiff alleged that by reason of the lack of legal authority of said defendants to purchase electrical power from the United States Government that said District had no power to issue the said bonds above mentioned and that if they were issued they would be null and void and not a lien or charge upon the taxable property situate within said District.
'That thereafter the defendant District answered the complaint in said action and the cause was tried and determined; that during the trial thereof the said plaintiff voluntarily abandoned its contention that the said District was without authority to purchase electrical energy from the United States Government.
'That in said action the said court, by its judgment, decreed that the said plaintiff take nothing by its action and that the electrical bonds hereinabove referred to will be, when sold, valid and legal obligations of said district, and that the defendants herein had the right, power, and jurisdiction to issue and sell said electrical bonds.
'That thereafter the said plaintiff appealed from said judgment, and said judgment was affirmed on appeal and the same is now final.'
The court made substantially the same finding in the action involved on the appeal in 3 Civil No. 9168.
The court then concluded that appellants were estopped by the judgment in the prior action and that the judgment in the prior action was res adjudicata. The court found further that the respondent district did have authority to purchase electric energy from the Bureau of Reclamation. Appellants have appealed from the judgment in each action denying an injunction and decreeing that respondent District had the legal right and authority to enter into the proposed contract.
We have concluded that the court correctly determined that appellants were estopped by the judgment in the prior action and that the judgment in said prior action was res adjudicata.
The record shows that in the prior action numbered 19529, filed in the Superior Court, appellant Pacific Gas and Electric Company, for and on behalf of itself and other taxpayers, alleged in its complaint that respondent District had no power to contract with the United States Government or any agency thereof for the purchase of electric energy and that by reason of said lack of legal authority to so contract said District had no power to issue the bonds, and if they were issued they would be illegal. There were, of course, other allegations that the issuance of $150,000 in bonds would exceed the authorized debt limit and that the District failed to obtain an estimate of the cost of acquiring the existing distribution system of appellant company.
It is the contention of appellants that in the prior action the trial court would not consider the question of whether respondent District should be enjoined from contracting with the United States for electric power and that the court, over the objection of respondent, allowed appellant Pacific Gas and Electric Company to withdraw that issue from the case. Appellants argue in effect that having withdrawn the issue in the prior action, the judgment establishing the validity of the bonds did not foreclose the raising of the issue of respondent District's right to contract with the United States Government for the purchase...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riddle v. Fiano
...141 Cal.App.2d 428, 297 P.2d 98; Stout v. Pearson, 180 Cal.App.2d 211, 4 Cal.Rptr. 313; Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. Shasta Dam Area Public Utility Dist., 146 Cal.App.2d 752, 304 P.2d 862; City of Los Angeles v. Jameson, 165 Cal.App.2d 351, 331 P.2d It must be kept in mind that the plain......