Legal Opinion

Easterbrook v. Farquharson

California Supreme Court

Decided December 6, 1895No. 15839PublishedCited by 25 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the 'City and County of San Francisco. A. A. Sanderson, •Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

Plaintiff, as lessor, and one Apel, as lessee (to whose rights defendant succeeded), entered into a contract of lease which provided for the erection of a building by the lessee upon the demised land, and the payment by him of a stipulated ground rent. It further provided that the lessor, upon the last day of the term, would pay to the lessee two-thirds of the appraised value of the building, which value was to be ascertained and determined as follows:

“ Each party shall select a disinterested, practical builder of good repute and standing, residing and doing business in said city and county,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Cox v. McLaughlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Coburn v. GoodallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Brady v. WilcoxsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  4. Mix v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  5. McFadden v. CrawfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Lineman v. SchmidCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Knutson v. LasherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
  3. Robinson v. American Fish & Oyster Co.California Court of Appeal · 1911
  4. C.A. MacOmber v. L. M. BigelowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Hanlon Drydock & Shipbuilding Co. v. G. W. McNear, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1924

20 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