Perrine v. Marsden
N. P. PERRINE and JAMES J. WALKER v. GEORGE MARSDEN, WILLIAM A. GREEN, and JOHN SEARLS
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Silas S. Sanderson (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 — Sanderson
By the Court, Sanderson, J.:
So far as this may be considered an action to restrain the commission of waste, it cannot be sustained upon the facts disclosed in the record. It is not only not averred in the complaint that the plaintiffs are entitled to the reversion, *18but it is shown by the uncontradieted affidavit of Green that they are not. (Taylor’s Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 686.)
The same is true of the case in its aspect as an action to restrain the defendants from removing the double house, upon the ground that the security for the rent will be impaired by its removal. To maintain the action upon that ground, it is not sufficient to show that the security will be lessened in value. It must appear that it will be left inadequate, which is not shown to be the case, but quite the contrary. (Buckout v. Swift, 27 Cal. 433.)
Let the injunction be dissolved.
Cites, in this corpus
- Buckout v. Swift · 1865-07-01
Cited by
- County of Los Angeles v. Berk L.A. 31099 · 1980-01-24
- Miller v. Waddingham No. 13899 · 1891-09-25