Moroney

Moroney v. Hellings

Good Law
110 Cal. 219·1895 Cal. LEXIS 1043·42 P. 560
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 29, 1895No. 15874California674 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Henshaw, J.

Appeal from the judgment. The action is one in unlawful detainer, for the forfeiture of a, lease, the recovery of the possession of the demised premises, and for treble rents.

Hellings and his wife were the lessees. Walk was a subtenant, and entered under the Hellings, after the three days’ notice to pay or vacate had been served upon them.

The complaint, which is in the usual form, sufficiently pleads plaintiff’s cause of action. The answer denied that any sum of money was due as rent, and by way of cross-complaint pleaded that by the indenture of lease it was expressly agreed that all necessary repairs during the term of the letting should he made and the expense therefor borne by plaintiff; that during the time mentioned in the complaint when it was claimed that rent was due and unpaid the water pipes of said premises “ became impaired and leaky, and greatly increased the monthly water rate,” and caused the tenants occupy *220 ing the premises to vacate; and that the plaintiff, after frequent demands, still refused to repair the water pipes or to permit defendants Hellings to do so—all to the damage of the defendants in the sum of two hundred and sixty dollars.

Complaint is…

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.