Legal Opinion

Powell v. Mohr

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 15, 1924No. Civ. No. 3955PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.

One Beach, whose successor in interest was one Haas, demised to one Jaus a certain apartment house under a written lease which contained a provision that the lessee was “not to sublet the whole of said premises, nor to assign or transfer this lease . . . without the written consent” of the lessor. The instrument also contained a clause reciting that “it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto, that in the event that the [lessee] desires to transfer this lease and the [lessor] shall fail, or refuse to give his consent to the transfer, then each party hereto shall appoint one person…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Wickersham v. JohnstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Baker v. BrickellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Page v. GarverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hamblin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Williard v. CampbellMontana Supreme Court · 1932
  3. United Railroads of San Francisco v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API