CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. AITKEN (1939)

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. v. AITKEN et al.

Civ. 6132

Decided: May 23, 1939

Ray L. Chesbro, City Attorney, S.B. Robinson, Chief Asst. City Atty., Mark A. Hall, Asst. City Atty., Carl A. Davis, Deputy City Atty., and T.B. Cosgrove, Special Counsel, all of Los Angeles, for plaintiffs and appellants. Thomas Wade Cochran, Chapman & Chapman, and Ward Chapman, all of Los Angeles, for Venita R. McPherson and Title Ins. Co. Anderson & Anderson and William R. Law, all of Los Angeles, for Wallis D. McPherson.

Our attention has been called to language in the opinion which might be construed to the effect that legal interest should be allowed the condemnee from the date of the taking of the property under condemnation proceedings. Such question was not presented upon this appeal, and we do not want to be understood as holding that legal interest should be allowed prior to the entry of the interlocutory decree, as where property is taken by the state, or any agency of the state, prior to the trial and entry of such decree.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network