Jessen v. Sweigert
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSharpstein, J.
-If the defendant had both owned and occupied the building to which the awning that fell on the plaintiff was attached, the evidence, indubitably, would be sufficient to justify the verdict. But the defendant, while owning the building, did not occupy it. It was occupied by a tenant, under a lease, in which the defendant did not covenant to keep the premises in repair; and it is urged by defendant’s counsel, that section 1941, Civil Code, did not impose on the lessor of this building any greater or other obligations in that respect than the common law did. Conceding that to be so, is not the…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Granucci v. ClaasenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Stenberg v. WillcoxTennessee Supreme Court · 1896
- Kalis v. ShattuckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Salt Lake City v. SchubachUtah Supreme Court · 1945
- Davis v. Pac. Power Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.