King v. Connolly
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the County Court, City and County of San Francisco. This is the second appeal in this case. (See 44 Cal. 236.) The plaintiff, on the 23d day of November, 1867, let the premises (a part of Mission Block No. 24), to the defendant, to have and hold during the will of the plaintiff. The defendant entered under the lease.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the County Court, City and County of San Francisco. This is the second appeal in this case. (See 44 Cal. 236.) The plaintiff, on the 23d day of November, 1867, let the premises (a part of Mission Block No. 24), to the defendant, to have and hold during the will of the plaintiff. The defendant entered under the lease. On the 23d of November, 1869, the plaintiff made written demand of the defendant to deliver up the possession of the premises, and no other demand was made. The defendant, in his answer, denied the lease. The plaintiff had judgment, and the defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The complaint avers that the defendant entered upon the demanded premises as a tenant at will of the plaintiff, under a verbal lease, and “that the time for which said premises were demised as aforesaid has terminated, and that the said defendants hold over and continue in possession of the said demised premises, without the permission of the said plaintiff and contrary to the terms of said lease.” It then avers that “since the expiration of the term for which said premises were demised ” the plaintiff made a demand in writing upon the lessee to surrender the possession, and that…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Martin v. SplivaloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Wagner v. HavardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927