Legal Opinion

Zucco v. Farullo

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 17, 1918No. Civ. No. 2278PublishedCited by 11 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

BEASLY, J., pro tem.

This is an action primarily of unlawful detainer, in which the defendant defaulted, and judgment was thereupon taken against him for the possession of the premises demanded and for damages, and for some other relief hereinafter noticed. He appeals from this judgment, and makes three points for reversal, namely, that three causes of action are improperly united in the complaint, to wit, first, a suit in equity for the reformation of a lease; second, an action at law for damages for breach of the covenants of the lease, and, third, an aetioh of unlawful detainer.

This court,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Amestoy v. Elec. Rapid Transit Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Alexander v. McDowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Gray v. Maier & Zobelein BreweryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
  4. Schnittger v. RoseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Cowell v. LinforthCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Delta Imports, Inc. v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
  2. Pfitzer v. CandeiasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  3. Harris v. BissellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  4. National Bank of New Zealand, Ltd. v. FinnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  5. Group Property Inc. v. BruceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952

6 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