Morrison v. Rossignol

5 Cal. 64
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1855
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 5 Cal. 64 (Morrison v. Rossignol) 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
Morrison v. Rossignol, 5 Cal. 64 (Cal. 1855).

Opinion

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., concurred.

A covenant for a lease to be renewed indefinitely at the option of the lessee, is, in effect, the creation of a perpetuity; it puts it in the power of one party to renew for ever, and is therefore against the policy of the law.

Another and substantial objection to the enforcement of the clause of renewal in the lease disclosed by the record, consists in the want of any certain basis for the ascertainment of the rent to be paid. It says the rent shall be stipulated according to the value of the property. But who is to fix the value of the property ? Certainly each party would have the right to do it for himself, in the absence of any other stipulation. I know of no rule of law which can compel a party to change his estimate of the value of his property, when by contract he has the right to determine it for himself. A Court of Equity is always [66]*66chary of its power to decree specific performance, and will withhold the exercise of its jurisdiction in that respect, unless there is such a degree of certainty in the terms of the contract as will enable it at one view to do complete equity. The maxim id certum est quod certum reddi potest, is here improperly invoked; for, governed by the language of the lease, there is no test by which certainty can be attained.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

Related

Tufeld Corp. v. Beverly Hills Gateway, L.P.
California Court of Appeal, 2022
Ginsberg v. Gamson
205 Cal. App. 4th 873 (California Court of Appeal, 2012)
Etco Corp. v. Hauer
161 Cal. App. 3d 1154 (California Court of Appeal, 1984)
Walker v. Keith
382 S.W.2d 198 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1964)
Fisher v. Parsons
213 Cal. App. 2d 829 (California Court of Appeal, 1963)
Ablett v. Clauson
272 P.2d 753 (California Supreme Court, 1954)
Ridgway v. Chase
265 P.2d 603 (California Court of Appeal, 1954)
Epstein v. Zahloute
222 P.2d 318 (California Court of Appeal, 1950)
Chaney v. Schneider
206 P.2d 669 (California Court of Appeal, 1949)
United States v. Bauman
56 F. Supp. 109 (D. Oregon, 1943)
Lloyd's Estate v. Mullen Tractor & Equipment Co.
4 So. 2d 282 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1941)
Aikins v. Nevada Placer, Inc.
13 P.2d 1103 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1932)
Hill v. Waiting Mining Co.
261 P. 1115 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
Howard v. Burrow
245 P. 808 (California Court of Appeal, 1926)
Estate of Crockett
4 Coffey 328 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1903)
Rankin v. Newman
46 P. 742 (California Supreme Court, 1896)
In re Estate of Eggers
46 P. 380 (California Supreme Court, 1896)
Brush v. Beecher
68 N.W. 420 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1896)
Diffenderfer v. Board of President of St. Louis Public Schools
25 S.W. 542 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
Magee v. McManus
12 P. 451 (California Supreme Court, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Cal. 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrison-v-rossignol-cal-1855.