Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Farnum v. Hefner

California Supreme Court

Decided July 3, 1889No. 12351PublishedCited by 27 opinions

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Butte County denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.

—Action to recover damages for the conversion of a lot of wheat. Judgment for the plaintiff, from which, and an order denying his motion for a new trial, the defendant appeals.

The respondent being the owner of certain real estate leased the same to one Butler for a term of years. The lease contained the following covenants: —

“And the said party of the second part does hereby covenant and. agree that he will not underlet any portion of said premises nor assign this lease without the written permission of the said party of the first part, his agent or attorney, and he will, during the said term…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Smith v. AtkinsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
  2. Bemis v. WilderMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
  3. Howell v. FosterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  4. Briggs v. OaksSupreme Court of Vermont · 1853
  5. Paris v. VailSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co.California Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Kendall v. Ernest Pestana, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Powell v. NicholsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
  4. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009
  5. Summerville v. Stockton Milling Co.California Supreme Court · 1904

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API