Schnitman

Schnitman v. Husted

Caution
1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 649·99 Cal. App. 666·279 P. 194
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 29, 1929Docket No. 6824.California1,384 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Koford, J.

Plaintiff and defendants are, respectively, successors in interest of the lessee and lessors under a lease of real property in San Francisco. The lease provided for a renewal term of ten years without definitely fixing the amount of rental for such renewal term. The parties being unable to agree upon the amount and the arbitration provided for in the lease having failed, the plaintiff brought this action in the Superior Court and had the court fix by judgment the amount of rent to be paid under the terms of the lease during the renewal term. The defendants appeal from the judgment claiming that the court erred in its interpretation of the lease because it decided that de fendants should continue to pay taxes assessed upon the land notwithstanding the lease contained a clause to the effect that such rent should be calculated at the rate of four and one-half per cent net on the appraisement of the land. The appraised value of the land was determined by the appraisement committee of the San Francisco Real Estate Board pursuant to stipulation, of the parties.

It is only necessary to set out herein two clauses of the lease, but it should he stated that at the time of the original…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.