Legal Opinion

Silva v. Angelo

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 26, 1921No. Civ. No. 2183PublishedCited by 2 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

The object of this action is: 1. To reform a certain lease, whereby the plaintiff demised certain real property to the defendant for the term of three years, commencing on the first day of November, 1916, and ending on the thirty-first day of October, 1919; 2. To recover judgment against the defendant for the sum of $983.80, alleged to be for moneys received by the defendant for plaintiff for the sale of hay and potatoes; 3. For an accounting by de fendant “for the balance of the crops and proceeds of said leased premises.”

The lease concerning which the controversy involved herein arose, as…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hoyt v. HartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Stoddard v. TreadwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  3. Schmidt v. KlotzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Peake v. HarrisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  5. F. A. Hihn Co. v. City of Santa CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Purdy v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  2. Cox v. PithoudCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API