Kishlar v. Southern Pacific R.R. Co.
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County and from an order denying a new trial and from an order striking out a cost-bill. J. S. Noyes, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
Action plaintiff. He appeals from the judgment, from the order denying new trial, and from the judgment disallowing him his costs. Plaintiff was the owner of a leasehold interest in a certain lot in White’s Addition to Riverside, the lease being for three years from November 13, 1895, with privilege of renewal at same rental for two years. The lot was 25 feet wide and 120 feet long, entirely occupied by a warehouse. Pachappa Avenue bounded the lot on the west, and was occupied by the tracks of the Santa Fé Railroad Company, so close to the building as to preclude the loading and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- San Diego Land & Town Co. v. NealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- City of Santa Ana v. HarlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Lawrence v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
3Cited by15 opinions
- Sacramento Etc. R.R. Co. v. HeilbronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- City of Oakland v. Pacific Coast Lumber & Mill Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
- Lind v. WebberNevada Supreme Court · 1913
- Winkler v. JerrueCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Kafka v. DavidsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.