Wing v. Dennis

California Supreme Court

Wing v. Dennis

268 P. 1117, 204 Cal. 423, 1928 Cal. LEXIS 696

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 25, 1928

DocketDocket No. L.A. 9293.

StatusPublished

This text of 268 P. 1117 (Wing v. Dennis) 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

Wing v. Dennis, 268 P. 1117, 204 Cal. 423, 1928 Cal. LEXIS 696 (Cal. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

SHENK, J.

This is an action, to establish and enforce a trust in a renewal lease of a hotel in favor of a partnership existing between the plaintiff Minnie Mabelle Wing and the defendant. The partnership was formed on May 25, 1921, solely for the purpose of conducting the hotel under said lease. The lease, by its terms, would expire on May 31, 1925. On March 1, 1925, the defendant procured in her own name a renewal of said lease for a term of six years, commencing June 1, 1925. This action was instituted on April 8, 1925. Judgment went for the defendant and this appeal is taken therefrom. The principal contention on the appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that the renewal of the lease taken in the name of the defendant and for her sole use was so taken with the consent, express or implied, *424 of the plaintiff Minnie Mabelle Wing. The record has been examined. We are of the opinion that the evidence is sufficient to support said finding. No other points require comment.

The judgment is affirmed.

Richards, J., and Tyler, J., pro tem., concurred.

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

SHENK, J.

This is an action, to establish and enforce a trust in a renewal lease of a hotel in favor of a partnership existing between the plaintiff Minnie Mabelle Wing and the defendant. The partnership was formed on May 25, 1921, solely for the purpose of conducting the hotel under said lease. The lease, by its terms, would expire on May 31, 1925. On March 1, 1925, the defendant procured in her own name a renewal of said lease for a term of six years, commencing June 1, 1925. This action was instituted on April 8, 1925. Judgment went for the defendant and this appeal is taken therefrom. The principal contention on the appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that the renewal of the lease taken in the name of the defendant and for her sole use was so taken with the consent, express or implied, *424 of the plaintiff Minnie Mabelle Wing. The record has been examined. We are of the opinion that the evidence is sufficient to support said finding. No other points require comment.

The judgment is affirmed.

Richards, J., and Tyler, J., pro tem., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 P. 1117, 204 Cal. 423, 1928 Cal. LEXIS 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wing-v-dennis-cal-1928.