Legal Opinion

Wayland v. Latham

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 7, 1928No. Docket No. 5986PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BURROUGHS, P. J., pro tem.

This is an action of unlawful detainer after default in payment of rent and three days’ notice to pay rent or quit. The cause was tried by a jury and a verdict returned in favor of the defendant. Before the entry of judgment thereon the court, notwithstanding the verdict, on motion of plaintiff, rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff declaring a forfeiture of the lease, a restitution of the premises, $2,650 rent due and an attorney fee in the sum of $500, together with his costs of suit.

It is the contention of the appellant that the court erred in setting aside…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Estate of CasparCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Estate of SharonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  3. In Re Estate of BaldwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Perera v. Panama-Pacific International Exp. Co.California Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Field v. ShorbCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Bliss v. Security-First National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  2. Julian v. GoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Estate of CaldwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Hunt v. SmythCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  5. Hewitt v. Justice's CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933

5 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