Hall v. Center
California Supreme Court
Appeal from tbe District Court of tbe Fifteenth District, City and County of San Francisco. The facts are stated in tbe -opinion. Tbe doctrine of mutuality does not apply to tbis case.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe District Court of tbe Fifteenth District, City and County of San Francisco. The facts are stated in tbe -opinion. Tbe doctrine of mutuality does not apply to tbis case. Tbe case of De Butte v. Muldrow, (16 Cal. 505-12-13,) is conclusive of tbe present, not only on tbe point of mutuality, but upon every other question that could be raised, and sustains tbe plaintiff’s claim to have specific performance decreed of tbe covenant sued on, and of tbe obligations of tbe lease, and, in addition to tbe facts there existing, furnishes an equitable claim for relief of tbe strongest kind,…
1Opinion of the Court
"Wallace, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court, Temple, J., Crockett, J., and Erodes, C. J., concurring :
Center and Spreckles were owners of certain premises and leased them to Hall for a term at a stipulated rent. During the running of the lease, Spreckles conveyed his undivided half of the reversionary estate to the defendant Grim.
The lease was signed by the lessors and lessee, and contained a clause to the effect that Hall should have the privilege of purchasing the premises at $1,750 on or before the expiration of the term.
Hall entered into possession under the lease, and performed all…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cooper v. PenaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- De Rutte v. MuldrowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by41 opinions
- Hayes v. O'BrienIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Smith v. BanghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Bewick v. MechamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Menger v. WardTexas Supreme Court · 1895
- La Rue v. GroezingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.