Legal Opinion

Menning v. Sourisseau

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 13, 1933No. Docket No. 8296PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JORGENSEN, J., pro tem.

This is an action instituted by the plaintiff, appellant here, against the defendant, respondent here, seeking specific performance of a lease, or alternative relief in damages in the sum of $26,200, in the event he cannot be granted specific performance. In this lease defendant was lessor and plaintiff was lessee, which lease covered three lots owned by defendant in the city of Hynes, in Los Angeles County. The lease was in writing and leased the said premises to plaintiff for a gasoline service station and garage business for a period of five years. At the time, of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Tupman v. HaberkernCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Burt v. Los Angeles Olive Growers Assn.California Supreme Court · 1917
  3. De Jarnatt v. CooperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Roush v. KirkmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Zinn v. Ex-Cell-O Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1957
  2. Kane, Kane & Kritzer, Inc. v. AltagenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
  3. Goldberg v. GoldbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  4. Waller v. BrooksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  5. California Trust Co. v. CohnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935

10 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