Legal Opinion

Stoppelkamp v. Mangeot

California Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1871No. 1,682PublishedCited by 15 opinions

Appeal from the County Court of the City and County of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Sawyer, C. J.:

This is an action against a tenant holding over, to recover the premises under the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act of 1863. The complaint alleges that plaintiff, on the 20th of June, 1867, “leased, demised, and let to said defendant” the premises in question, “to have and to hold the said premises to said defendant, Charles Mangeot, for the month thence ensuing, at the rent of twenty-five dollars, payable on the twentieth day of said month of June, in advance. That by virtue of said lease, the said defendant, Charles Mangeot, went into the possession and occupation…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Courtwright v. Bear River & Auburn Water & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1866
  2. Caulfield v. StevensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Colyear v. TobrinerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Chuck v. Quan Wo Chong & Co.California Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Hurd v. WhitsettSupreme Court of Colorado · 1878
  4. Guy v. BrennanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  5. Owen v. HerzihoffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906

10 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