Legal Opinion
Von Rohr v. Neely
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 6, 1946No. Civ. 15392PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWilson, J.
This appeal is a sequel of the refusal of the trial court to receive parol evidence for the purpose of re vealing the meaning of the term “appurtenances” in a lease. In June, 1945, respondent’s predecessor in ownership executed a lease in writing to appellant for premises described only as “130 East Garvey Boulevard, El Monte, . . . together with the appurtenances” for use as a coffee shop or lunch room. The building is approximately in the center of the lot and is situated about 32 feet from its front line, with an unoccupied area of about 30 feet on each side of the building. The vacant…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Swett v. ShumwayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- McClintic-Marshall Co. v. Ford Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1931
- Mattix v. SwepstonTennessee Supreme Court · 1913
- Whittelsey v. PorterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1909
- Catterall v. PulisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Commissioner of Transportation v. Medicine Bird Black Bear White EagleCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2001
- Ellis v. KlaffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Lathrop v. GaugerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Ng v. WarrenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- Burge v. KrugCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.