Crittenden v. St. Hill
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Geo. A. Sturtevant, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtLennon, P. J.
This is an action in unlawful detainer. The pleaded and proven facts of the case show, substantially, that on the tenth day of June, 1914, the defendant herein and one Everson entered into a lease of the premises in controversy. Plaintiff acquired title to the demised premises from Everson on December 14th of the same year. Immediately following this change of ownership disputes arose between the plaintiff and defendant concerning the legality of the lease held by the latter, which finally culminated in litigation between them. Finally, however, the plaintiff, on July 3, 1915, agreed to waive…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- American Process Co. v. Florida White Pressed Brick Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1908
- Arnold v. KrigbaumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Johnson v. VanceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by11 opinions
- Roam v. KoopCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Kemp v. EnemarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Godefroy v. ReillyWashington Supreme Court · 1928
- J. I. Case Threshing MacHine Co. v. Copren Bros.California Court of Appeal · 1919
- City Bank of San Diego v. RamageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.