Legal Opinion

Schnittger v. Rose

California Supreme Court

Decided July 24, 1903No. S.F. No. 2559PublishedCited by 21 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.

This is an action in unlawful detainer brought under subdivision 3 of section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to have a lease under which defendant Rose-held possession of certain lands in Sonoma County, declared forfeited. The breach of the lease is alleged to have consisted in his failure to perform a covenant therein, by which he agreed to manufacture into wine for the plaintiff—lessor —certain grapes grown upon what is known as the ‘1 Schnittger Ranch, ’ ’ situated some distance from the premises leased, and for damages for the breach thereof. The case was tried before a jury, a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Newman v. Overland Pacific Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Ben Lomond Wine Co. v. SladkyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Pollitz v. WickershamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Knight v. BlackCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
  3. People v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  4. Richard v. Degen & Brody, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. Scott v. RenzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945

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

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

Powered by the Exa API