Legal Opinion

Levy v. Henderson

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 3, 1916No. Civ. No. 1587PublishedCited by 3 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.

The action was for rent and for restitution of premises.

The court found that on or about the twenty-eighth day of September, 1913, the plaintiff leased to defendant the ground floor of certain premises in Stockton known as the Aurora Flour Mills, from month to month, at the rental of fifteen dollars per month, and that said lease was not in writing; “that by virtue of said lease the defendant went into the possession of said floor space of said premises, and continued to occupy and hold the same as the tenant of the plaintiff until the month of July, 1914, at which time, by the mutual consent…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cox v. DelmasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Simpson v. ApplegateCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Bolton v. LandersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  4. Smith v. ShawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Cohen v. Superior Court of S.F.California Court of Appeal · 1967
  2. Government Employees Insurance Company v. NadkarniDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2019
  3. Hollar v. Saline Products, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API