¶1There was no misjoinder of parties defendant. The complaint was sufficient. There was no error in striking out that portion of defendant’s, Boydstun’s, answer, which attempted to raise an issue as to the necessity of taking the land for the road. The question of necessity is settled by the board of supervisors, and, having so determined, it is not a question for the court to pass on: Tehama Co. v. Bryan, 68 Cal. 57, 8 Pac. 673.
¶2Judgment affirmed.