Loupe v. Wood
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, City and. County of San Francisco. The defendant executed to the plaintiffs a lease of the first floor and cellar of No. 216 California street, San Francisco, for the term of one year, with the privilege of another upon giving notice of thirty days before the expiration of the year.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, City and. County of San Francisco. The defendant executed to the plaintiffs a lease of the first floor and cellar of No. 216 California street, San Francisco, for the term of one year, with the privilege of another upon giving notice of thirty days before the expiration of the year. The memorandum in writing constituting the lease contained nothing further, except an agreement of the lessees to pay the rent monthly, in advance. The lease was dated August 1, 1869. The plaintiffs continued ,to occupy until the twenty-third of December,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The respondent admits in argument here that the action is not “on a warranty, express or implied, nor an action ex contractu,” nor “upon misrepresentation,” but is.in tort. The supposed tort consists only in the alleged fact that the cellar which was demised to the plaintiffs was imperfectly and defectively constructed, so that, as the result of a heavy rainstorm, conjointly with a high tide in the bay, the water was backed up in the main sewer in California street, and was forced under the sidewalk and into the cellar. The damage did not result from any affirmative wrong done by…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Purcell v. EnglishIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Cole v. McKeyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
- Sieber v. BlancCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Massey v. . AlstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
- Kritzer v. MoffatWashington Supreme Court · 1925
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.