Cites Woodill & Hulse Electric Co. v. Young — APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. H. T. Dewhirst, Judge Presiding. Reversed.
In Estate of Bauer, heirs and legatees petitioned the probate court to cite the executrix and executor for examination regarding properties allegedly misappropriated from the decedent's estate and excluded from the inventory, and to suspend or remove them from office for failing to account or recover those assets. The trial court held a hearing on the petitions, received evidence and argument from both sides, and denied the requested relief. On appeal, the appellants contended that the evidence justified an order compelling an accounting and removal of the executors, and that the court had not properly heard the second petition. The appellate court affirmed the orders, concluding that the trial court had considered both petitions together, that the evidence was sufficient to support denial of relief, and that any procedural issues should have been raised below.
The case involved residents suing the City of Pasadena to enjoin the establishment of an isolation hospital on a designated site, claiming it constituted a private nuisance affecting their property rights and violated a zoning ordinance. The court addressed whether the city's legislative selection of the site was arbitrary or unreasonable and whether private rights could override the exercise of police power. It held that the action of the legislative body in siting the hospital was not clearly arbitrary, that public welfare interests in police power exercises take precedence over private rights when the action is reasonable, and that a later ordinance had effectively repealed the conflicting zoning restriction on hospitals in the district. The court also rejected arguments based on the bond funding source for the land, noting the city retained general authority over its use. The judgment in favor of the plaintiffs was reversed.
The case involved Grace Bernice Day, who was charged in two counts with assault with a caustic chemical for allegedly throwing nitric acid on her husband. The jury convicted her on count one but acquitted her on count two, and she was sentenced to prison; she appealed the judgment and the denial of a new trial, arguing that the acquittal barred the conviction, that her mental age exempted her from liability, and that evidentiary and instructional errors occurred. The court affirmed, reasoning that the counts alleged offenses with distinct required elements so that acquittal on one did not preclude conviction on the other, that the evidence supported the verdict, that the relevant statute referred to physical rather than mental age, and that any other claimed errors were not prejudicial.
The case involved a dispute over title to a lot in Oakland, where plaintiff Jacoby claimed ownership based on the record title and defendant Wolff claimed ownership under a tax deed from the state following a sale for delinquent taxes assessed in 1916. The trial court ruled for the plaintiff, finding the tax sale proceedings invalid due to defects in the property description on the assessment roll and other irregularities. On appeal, the court held that the description was not misleading when read with the referenced map, the published notice of sale substantially complied with statutory requirements despite minor wording differences, and the tax deed was admissible as proof of title. The court concluded there was no legal invalidity in the tax proceedings and reversed the judgment, directing that it should have been entered for the defendant on his cross-complaint.
The case concerned a neighboring property dispute in which the plaintiff alleged that smoke and soot from the defendant's low smokestack, rainwater runoff from his shed, and vibrations from a steam-hammer constituted nuisances that interfered with her home. The trial court ruled the steam-hammer operation was not a nuisance in the industrial area but found the smoke and water issues to be nuisances, issuing an injunction and awarding damages. On appeal, the court held that smoke and soot can constitute a nuisance even in an industrial neighborhood if emitted from a stack too low to avoid invading adjacent property, but it reversed the judgment because the trial court improperly excluded evidence of the true boundary line between the properties and because the finding that water flowed onto the plaintiff's land was unsupported by the evidence. The matter was remanded for a new trial to address the boundary issue and related pleadings.
In this case, Kearney Investment Company sued Golden Gate Ferry Company for rent and attorney fees under a lease for submerged bayfront property, after the lessee served notice rescinding the lease and filed a cross-complaint seeking cancellation. The lessee claimed the lessor had fraudulently misrepresented its fee simple ownership of two parcels and its valid 99-year lease on a third, when in fact title was held by the State of California. The trial court found the lessee had never taken possession, the lessor lacked the represented title, and the lease was rescinded. On appeal, the California Supreme Court affirmed, holding that evidence of state ownership did not constitute a collateral attack on a prior McEnerney decree because that decree did not adjudicate the state's interest, that the lessee was not estopped from raising the issue, and that official maps confirmed the property was excluded from any grant to the City of San Francisco.
