Legal Opinion

Becerra v. Hochberg

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 28, 1961No. Civ. 24940PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BISHOP, J. pro tem. *

The plaintiff leased to the defend ant for a five year term some property on Brooklyn Avenue in Los Angeles “to be used as chicken and egg and live poultry market and for no other, purpose.’’ The defendant paid the first month’s rent, failed to pay for a number of months, then resumed paying and had continued to make the monthly payments up to the trial. The judgment, for the rent not paid for a spell, is attacked on the ground that the lease was for a use made illegal by the city’s zoning ordinance. The illegality of the lease was not made to appear, and we are affirming…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. City of Norwalk v. Auction City, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1960
  2. Dunn v. Richard & John StegemannCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
  3. Higbee v. La SalleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Academy Spires, Inc. v. BrownNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1970
  2. County of San Mateo v. Palomar Holding Co.California Court of Appeal · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API