holding that the utility has the obligation to pay relocation expenses absent an express direction from the legislature or a provision in the franchise abrogating this obligation
How later courts described this case
- holding that the utility has the obligation to pay relocation expenses absent an express direction from the legislature or a provision in the franchise abrogating this obligation
- “the established rule that a utility’s rights in the public streets are taken subject to the paramount right of public travel . . . applies between public utilities and municipal corporations using the streets for sewer purposes”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McCOMB, J.
I dissent. I would affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by the District Court of Appeal in Southern California Gas Co. v. City of Los Angeles, (Cal.App.) 318 P.2d 735 .
Sehauer, J., concurred.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied September 24, 1958. Sehauer, J., and MeComb, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.