Bailey v. Richardson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new-trial. Action to enforce a covenant in a lease. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Whatever remedies the lessee of real estate has against his immediate lessor, for the breach of any agreement in the lease, he may have against the assigns of the lessor. (Civil Code, § 823 ; Farrington v. Kimball, 126 Mass. 402.) The assignment of the sub-lease by Dore to Richardson, and the payment df rent for the premises by Bailey, created a privity of estate between Richardson and Bailey. (Salisbury v. Shirley, 66 Cal. 223.)
The covenant to pay the value of the buildings,' at the termination of the lease, runs with the land. (Civil Code, §§ 1460, 1462; Rawle on Covenants, 334; Spencer’s…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Schellhous v. BallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Salisbury v. ShirleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Wilcox v. DavisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1860
- Thompson v. RoseNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Bell v. TennyOhio Supreme Court · 1876
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Kauffman v. De MutiisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Noble v. TweedyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Jameson v. HaywardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Standard Oil Co. v. SlyeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Gardner v. SamuelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.