Legal Opinion
Curtis v. Arnold
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 2, 1919No. Civ. No. 2957PublishedCited by 20 opinions
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Daniel C. Deasy, Judge. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWaste, P. J.
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment, and asks for a review of the order denying a motion for a new trial. The controversy involves the sum of three thousand dollars, on deposit under the terms of a written lease dated March 7, 1910, between defendant, as lessor, and Charles Loeffler, as lessee. The interests and rights of the lessee have been transferred to plaintiff.
The first paragraph of the lease reads as follows:
“For and in consideration of the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) gold coin of the United States of America, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Ella H. Arnold,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Michaels v. . FishelNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Caesar v. . RubinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Arnold v. KrigbaumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Galbraith v. WoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Green v. FrahmCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Butt v. BertolaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Wetzler v. PattersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Servais v. KleinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- A-1 Garage v. Lange Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
- Redmon v. GrahamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.