From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cheney v. J. R. Newberry & Co.

Supreme Court of California
Jun 23, 1885
67 Cal. 125 (Cal. 1885)

Opinion

         Department One

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County.

         COUNSEL:

         Henry M. Willis, for Appellant.

          Satterwhite & Curtis, for Respondents.


         JUDGES: Ross, J. McKee, J., and McKinstry, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          ROSS, Judge

         The demurrer to the complaint was properly sustained. The complaint alleges that on the 1st of June, 1883, under a written contract for a lease of a certain lot of land for the term of three years, at a rental of $ 66.66 per month, payable in advance, the defendants entered into possession of the premises. That on the 27th of September, 1883, being still in possession, defendants notified plaintiff "that they rescinded and cancelled the contract for a lease aforesaid and refused to be bound by it." That defendants continued to occupy the premises, "and plaintiff elected to receive from them for the year ending June 1, 1884, the rent therefor at the rate of $ 66.66 per month." Unless, in this condition of affairs, it can be said that defendants were not holding the premises under the contract under which they originally entered, it is quite clear that the action, which is unlawful detainer, cannot be maintained upon the averments contained in the complaint. The entry under the written contract for a lease for a stated term and at a stated rent, and the payment and receipt of the rent, constituted a valid lease between the parties for the term and at the rental specified. (1 Wash. Real Prop. pp. 397, 398.) Neither party could subsequently cancel the contract without the consent of the other, and that the plaintiff did not consent to the proposed [7 P. 445] cancellation is manifest from his subsequent acceptance of the rent in accordance with the terms of the contract. Payment and receipt of the rent was only consistent with a recognition by lessor as well as lessee that the lease was in force.

         Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Cheney v. J. R. Newberry & Co.

Supreme Court of California
Jun 23, 1885
67 Cal. 125 (Cal. 1885)
Case details for

Cheney v. J. R. Newberry & Co.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM H. CHENEY, Appellant, v. J. R. NEWBERRY&CO., Respondents

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jun 23, 1885

Citations

67 Cal. 125 (Cal. 1885)
7 P. 444

Citing Cases

Wolfsen v. Hathaway

[7] Appellants contend that the alleged oral agreement to lease was not invalid under section 1624 of the…

Regalia v. Mariani

The conclusions of law follow these findings, which find support in the evidence, and adjudge that respondent…