Pierce v. Minturn
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the superior court of the city of San Francisco, where judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Bennett, J.
Thompson leased certain premises to Fraener—the latter sub-let a portion thereof to Minturn— and, at the time of bringing suit, Nelson was in the actual possession of such portion of the premises as had been sub-let to Minturn, he having been put in possession thereof by Minturn. Thompson sold his interest in the lease to the plaintiff. The rent which Fraener agreed to pay was six thousand dollars a year, at the end of each year, and there was a covenant contained in his lease, that the lessor should have the right without -previous notice- or demand to enter upon the…
2Cited by9 opinions
- City of Sapulpa v. YoungSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
- Reynolds v. LincolnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Weaver v. ShipleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
- Curtiss v. BachmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- City of Lewiston v. BrintonIdaho Supreme Court · 1925
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.