Fleishhacker v. Moran
M. FLEISHHACKER, Respondent, v. JAMES MORAN Et Al., Appellants
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco
- Trial judge
- John Hunt
- Outcome
- other — The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. [Civ. No.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- The Court. — (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
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.