Randol

Randol v. Tatum

Good Law
1893 Cal. LEXIS 932·98 Cal. 390·33 P. 433
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 3, 189314391California3,005 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Temple, J.

Plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendants a new trial.

*393 The action is against sureties upon a bond given by the lessee to recover rent for the period of nine months, in the payment of which it is alleged default has been made. Defendants claim that the rent has been duly tendered month by month as it fell due, and therefore there has been no default.

There was a covenant in the lease to the effect that the lessee would not assign without the written consent of the lessor; also, a condition that if default were made the landlord might reenter and take possession without previous notice or demand.

The bond was conditioned that the lessee “shall in all things stand to and abide by and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions, and agreements in the written lease contained on his or their part, to be kept and performed át the time and in the manner and form therein specified,” etc. The lease bore date July 17, 1882, and was for the term of ten years.March 4,1885, the lessor gave the tenants, George A. Davis and Company, written permission to assign to H. L. Tatum, who was one of the sureties and is a defendant herein, and the lease was assigned in…

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.