Legal Opinion

Leoni v. Quinn

California Supreme Court

Decided September 21, 1922No. Sac. No. 3237PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MYERS, J., pro tem

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment for defendant in an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. There is no conflict as to the facts, and but a single question of law is presented. The respondent, the owner of certain real property in the City of Sacramento, leased the same to Nicoletti and Caietti for a term of years. Under the terms of the lease, which was in writing, the lessees were allowed to repair and remodel the premises at their own expense, except that the lessor agreed to pay two hundred dollars toward the plumbing repairs, to be paid by deductions from the monthly…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Pacific Sash & Door Co. v. BumillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Pasqualetti v. HilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  3. Reese v. Bald Mountain Consolidated Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Jurgenson v. DillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Ayers v. Green Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1897

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Albuquerque Lumber Co. v. Montevista Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Hammond Lumber Co. v. GordonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  3. Milner v. ShueyNevada Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Richmond MacHinery Co. v. BennettNevada Supreme Court · 1924
  5. George v. WentworthNevada Supreme Court · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API