Beach v. Farish

California Supreme Court

Beach v. Farish

4 Cal. 339

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1854

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 4 Cal. 339 (Beach v. Farish) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beach v. Farish, 4 Cal. 339 (Cal. 1854).

Pincite

Opinions

* Mr. J. Heydenfeldt

[340] delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.

What the appellant calls a fire-clause at the foot of the lease, is not what is generally known as such. This merely qualifies the covenant to return the premises in like good order, etc., at the expiration of the term, by exempting the tenant from liability to restore the house in case it should be destroyed by fire, a. liability which could not have accrued except by special covenant.

. There is certainly nothing in the clause which relieves the tenant from paying rent.

Judgment affirmed, with twenty per cent, damages.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

* Mr. J. Heydenfeldt

[340] delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.

What the appellant calls a fire-clause at the foot of the lease, is not what is generally known as such. This merely qualifies the covenant to return the premises in like good order, etc., at the expiration of the term, by exempting the tenant from liability to restore the house in case it should be destroyed by fire, a. liability which could not have accrued except by special covenant.

. There is certainly nothing in the clause which relieves the tenant from paying rent.

Judgment affirmed, with twenty per cent, damages.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Cal. 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beach-v-farish-cal-1854.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack