Fleishhacker v. Moran

California Court of Appeal

Fleishhacker v. Moran

173 P. 595, 37 Cal. App. 214, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 273

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 13, 1918

DocketCiv. No. 1850.

StatusPublished

This text of 173 P. 595 (Fleishhacker v. Moran) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fleishhacker v. Moran, 173 P. 595, 37 Cal. App. 214, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 273 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

In this action for rent, plaintiff: leased certain premises to the defendants, Moran and Nelson, to be used as a saloon, defendant Brewing Company being surety on the lease. One of the clauses of the lease reads as follows: “ It is further agreed that the premises are now in a tenantable and good condition, and are fit for the purposes for which they are hereby leased, and that they shall be kept in good condition by and at the expense of the lessees, during the term of this lease. ...” The answer did not deny that the rent sued *215 for was due, but alleged the existence of a latent defect in the premises which was not known to the defendants at the time that the property was leased. There is absolutely no showing in the answer that the defect referred to might not have been discovered prior to the making of the stipulation above quoted, and there is no attempt in the pleadings to reframe the lease on the ground of mistake or fraud. Under these circumstances it is clear that the defendants are bound by their stipulation and that the lower court properly gave its judgment for plaintiff on the pleadings.

Judgment affirmed.

A' petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on July 11, 1918.

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

THE COURT.

In this action for rent, plaintiff: leased certain premises to the defendants, Moran and Nelson, to be used as a saloon, defendant Brewing Company being surety on the lease. One of the clauses of the lease reads as follows: “ It is further agreed that the premises are now in a tenantable and good condition, and are fit for the purposes for which they are hereby leased, and that they shall be kept in good condition by and at the expense of the lessees, during the term of this lease. ...” The answer did not deny that the rent sued *215 for was due, but alleged the existence of a latent defect in the premises which was not known to the defendants at the time that the property was leased. There is absolutely no showing in the answer that the defect referred to might not have been discovered prior to the making of the stipulation above quoted, and there is no attempt in the pleadings to reframe the lease on the ground of mistake or fraud. Under these circumstances it is clear that the defendants are bound by their stipulation and that the lower court properly gave its judgment for plaintiff on the pleadings.

Judgment affirmed.

A' petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on July 11, 1918.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 P. 595, 37 Cal. App. 214, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleishhacker-v-moran-calctapp-1918.