Beach v. Farish
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Tenth Judicial District. This suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the sum' of $2,030 66, alleged to be due for the rent of certain premises in the City of Marysville, leased by the plaintiff to defendants. 1 The defendants agreed, by the terms of the lease, to pay the plaintiff the rent reserved.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Tenth Judicial District. This suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the sum' of $2,030 66, alleged to be due for the rent of certain premises in the City of Marysville, leased by the plaintiff to defendants. 1 The defendants agreed, by the terms of the lease, to pay the plaintiff the rent reserved. At the end of the lease was a clause which provided that the defendants should' deliver up the premises “in as good condition as at present, reasonable wear and tear excepted; also excepted, total loss by fire, whensoever the lessees are not answerable for neglect and…
1Opinion of the Court
* Mr. J. Heydenfeldt
[340] delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.
What the appellant calls a fire-clause at the foot of the lease, is not what is generally known as such. This merely qualifies the covenant to return the premises in like good order, etc., at the expiration of the term, by exempting the tenant from liability to restore the house in case it should be destroyed by fire, a. liability which could not have accrued except by special covenant.. There is certainly nothing in the clause which relieves the tenant from paying rent.
Judgment affirmed, with twenty per…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Japhet v. PolemanakosCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Cowell v. LumleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Speer v. See Yup Co.California Supreme Court · 1859