Legal Opinion

Alden v. Mayfield

California Supreme Court

Decided September 25, 1912No. Sac. No. 1943PublishedCited by 4 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover damages for injury to her freehold and for an injunction to restrain threatened future damages. The specific charge of damages was that the defendant “between midnight of the 28th day of May and daylight of the 28th day of May, wrongfully and unlawfully cut down, tore out and removed the heavy plate glass and stone front of a brick building belonging to plaintiff and replaced the same with a cheap temporary structure with great damage to said property and the said plaintiff in the sum of $1,000.” Defendant admitted the taking down and removal of the plate glass and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hendy v. DinkerhoffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Lavenson v. Standard Soap Co.California Supreme Court · 1889
  3. McNally v. ConnollyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Slane v. CurtisWyoming Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd. v. Unosuke HigashiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  3. Alden v. MayfieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
  4. Frazier v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API