Surocco v. Geary Supreme Court of California, 1853 3 Cal. 69, 58 Am.Dec. 385. FACTS Parties: Plaintiff: Surocco, appellee Defendant: Geary, appellant Procedural History:   The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff who sued for damages and loss when his house was blown up and destroyed Defendant appealed Relevant Facts:  Geary, defendant was the Alcalde (judicial or administrative power) of San Francisco burned down the house of the plaintiff in order to keep a fire from spreading even further through the city ISSUE: Whether a person, who destroys the house of another, in order to stop the progress of a raging fire therefore considering the act a necessity, can be liable for the destroyed property? PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS: Plaintiff:  Who has the right to decide the necessity of the destruction of property Defendant:  He had authority to destroy the building because it was necessary to save the rest of the other buildings HOLDING: No they cannot be held liable. Judgment was reversed. DISPOSITION OF THE COURT:    The necessity may not be visible to the owner of the property whose judgment is clouded by interest and the hope of saving their own property Legislature of the state can decide when a building must be destroyed but in the absence of their ability to make the decision common law takes over The house would have been consumed by the fire had it been left standing RULE OF LAW: Necessity  Common law states that only under times when it is necessary are persons of authority allowed to decide when a house/building may be destroyed