Legal Opinion

Brosnan v. Kramer

California Supreme Court

Decided December 10, 1901No. S.F. No. 1835PublishedCited by 23 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.

The appeal is from the judgment, with a bill of exceptions.

The main contention on the part of the appellants is, that the court below erred in sustaining the demurrer to certain affirmative defenses set up in the answer.

The action is to recover an alleged balance due on a certain written lease of premises in the city of Eureka. The lease in question was entered into between Mrs. Olivia Monroe, as lessor, and said defendant Kramer, as lessee, January 13,1892, by the terms of which the premises in question were let for the period of eight years, commencing January 1, 1892, and ending January 1,…

2Cited by23 opinions

  1. Peiser v. MettlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Realty & Rebuilding Co. v. ReaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Samuels v. OttingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  4. De Hart v. AllenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Hogle v. SmithSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907

18 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