Bonetti v. Treat
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Fitzgerald C.
Action for rent alleged to be due and unpaid on certain demised premises described in the complaint.
The answer specifically denies the material allegations of the complaint, and avers the neglect and refusal of plaintiff to obtain his lessor’s consent to the assignment, after having expressly agreed to do so, rescission of the lease and surrender of the premises by the defendant Treat, and the acceptance of and entry thereon by plaintiff.
The facts disclosed by the testimony of the witnesses for the plaintiff are as follows: On the ninth day of January, 1889, the plaintiff…
2Cited by48 opinions
- Hartman Ranch Co. v. Associated Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
- Realty & Rebuilding Co. v. ReaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Samuels v. OttingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Jordan v. Indianapolis Water Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1902
- Cauble v. HansonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1920
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.