Bettens v. Hoover
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, and from an order denying a new trial. John E. Richards, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHall, J.
This is an action in unlawful detainer. Plaintiff recovered judgment for the possession of the premises and damages, and defendant has appealed from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
Defendant is the assignee of the original lessee; and plaintiff, by virtue of a lease (which includes the property sued for), from the owners of the property, to plaintiff, for a term of nine years, has succeeded to the rights of the original lessors.
Hereafter in this opinion we shall designate the lease under which defendant claims as the Hoover lease.
The first point relied upon…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Andrews v. Marshall Creamery Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Main Street & Agricultural Park Railroad v. Los Angeles Traction Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
- Ewing v. MilesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1895
- Earl Orchard Co. v. FavaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Wiener v. H. Graff & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1908
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Colyear v. TobrinerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- United States v. 70.39 Acres of LandDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1958
- Grass v. Rindge Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
- Spreckels v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- Ryland v. AppelbaumCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924