Hibbard v. Chipman

California Supreme Court

Hibbard v. Chipman

1 Cal. Unrep. 10

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hibbard v. Chipman. Read the opinion of the Court — 1 Cal. Unrep. 16 →

California Supreme Court·Decided December 15, 1855·No. No. 849·Published

Opinion

HEYDENFELDT, J.

— Whatever rights the original lessees may have had to come into a court of equity to have the lease reformed, certainly no such right passed to the plain[11]*11tiff by their simple assignment of the lease to him. He took with his eyes open, and can have no claim except to the extent given by the plain import of the terms of the lease. This view renders it unnecessary' to consider the merits of the bill.

Decree affirmed.

I concur: Murray, C. J.

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

HEYDENFELDT, J.

— Whatever rights the original lessees may have had to come into a court of equity to have the lease reformed, certainly no such right passed to the plain[11]*11tiff by their simple assignment of the lease to him. He took with his eyes open, and can have no claim except to the extent given by the plain import of the terms of the lease. This view renders it unnecessary' to consider the merits of the bill.

Decree affirmed.

I concur: Murray, C. J.

Hibbard v. Chipman, 1 Cal. Unrep. 10 (Cal. 1855).

Pincite

1 Cal. Unrep. 10 (Hibbard v. Chipman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.