Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lindenberg v. MacDonald

California Supreme Court

Decided February 3, 1950No. S. F. 17809Published

1DissentCarter, J.

I dissent.

I find myself in the middle of two extreme positions as I cannot agree with the opinion of either Justice Schauer or Justice Edmonds.

We have a case here in which a landlord, under a provision in a lease, may terminate a lease on 60 days’ notice if the building presently on the property covered thereby is to be removed and a new one erected. Pursuant to that option the lessor gives to the tenant an unequivocal notice that the lease is terminated and the lessee must vacate. Acting in response to that notice, not of his own volition, the tenant vacates the property. He then brings an…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Gold Mining & Water Co. v. SwinertonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Dubois v. GentryTennessee Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Clise Investment Co. v. StoneWashington Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Southeastern Land Company v. ClemCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1931
  5. Allen v. KilpatrickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931

2 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