HOLDINGS: [1]-Because congressional acts granting rights-of-way to the transcontinental railroads did not convey a sufficient property interest to a railroad to justify its collecting rent on a pipeline's subsurface easements, the railroad had the burden to prove what parcels were its property during the period at issue before it could collect rent from the pipeline for easements traversing those parcels during that period; [2]-Valuation issues resolved as part of previous litigation between the parties did not collaterally estop them from litigating them in the instant case, as the evidence demonstrated changes in facts and circumstances that affected the rental value of the easements; [3]-An award of prejudgment interest to the railroad under Civ. Code, § 3287, subd. (b), was error, given no unlawful act or omission occurred as the parties proceeded according to their mutual agreement.

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. has the Best Corporate Lawyers in California

Outcome

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded.