Knowles v. Murphy
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
Defendants entered into a lease with C. P. Lolor, bearing date August 3, 1885, by the terms of which he hired and demised to them a certain lot of land in San Francisco, for the term of six months, at the monthly rent of thirty-one dollars, payable in advance on the third day of each and every month during said term. The instrument contained a clause giving to the defendants the option of purchasing the demised premises at any time during the term, by paying the sum of three thousand seven hundred dollars and all the rent accruing under the lease. The defendants had been in possession of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Tewksbury v. MagraffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Felton v. MillardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Mason v. WolffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Johnson v. ChelyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Martel v. MeehanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Bekins v. TrullCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- Jose Realty Co. v. PavlicevichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Stockton Morris Plan Co. v. CarpenterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Group Property Inc. v. BruceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Peebler v. SeawellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.