From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stoppelkamp v. Mangeot

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1871
42 Cal. 316 (Cal. 1871)

Summary

In Stoppelkamp v. Mangeot (1871), 42 Cal. 316, 322, the court, considering a statute now embodied in section 827, Civil Code, providing for change of the terms of a tenancy "from month to month," said: "Unless a lease for a specified period of time, as one month, is the same identical thing in law as a lease for an indefinite period of time with rent payable monthly, or a lease from month to month, the provisions of section six do not apply to the former.

Summary of this case from PALMER v. ZEIS

Opinion


42 Cal. 316 AGLIE STOPPELKAMP v. CHARLES MANGEOT and AUGUSTINE CEZAR No. 1,682 Supreme Court of California October, 1871

[Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]          42 Cal. 316 at 325.

         Original Opinion of October 1871, Reported at: 42 Cal. 316.

         JUDGES: Wallace, J.

         OPINION

         WALLACE, J.

         [The foregoing opinion was delivered at the April Term, 1869, at which time Mr. Chief Justice Sawyer and Mr. Justice Sanderson were members of the Court. A rehearing was granted, and the following opinion was delivered at the October Term, 1871:]

         By the Court, Wallace, J.:

         Ordered, that the judgment heretofore rendered in this case, directing a modification of the judgment of the Court below, be and the same is hereby set aside; and it is further ordered that the judgment of the Court below be and the same is hereby reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial; the opinion heretofore filed herein to stand as the opinion of the Court, except as much thereof as authorizes a modification of said judgment.


Summaries of

Stoppelkamp v. Mangeot

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1871
42 Cal. 316 (Cal. 1871)

In Stoppelkamp v. Mangeot (1871), 42 Cal. 316, 322, the court, considering a statute now embodied in section 827, Civil Code, providing for change of the terms of a tenancy "from month to month," said: "Unless a lease for a specified period of time, as one month, is the same identical thing in law as a lease for an indefinite period of time with rent payable monthly, or a lease from month to month, the provisions of section six do not apply to the former.

Summary of this case from PALMER v. ZEIS

In Stoppelkamp v. Mangeot, 42 Cal. 323, it is said: "In the case of a lease from month to month the estate does not terminate by the mere lapse of time.

Summary of this case from Dorn v. Oppenheim
Case details for

Stoppelkamp v. Mangeot

Case Details

Full title:AGLIE STOPPELKAMP v. CHARLES MANGEOT and AUGUSTINE CEZAR

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 1, 1871

Citations

42 Cal. 316 (Cal. 1871)

Citing Cases

Chuck v. Quan Wo Chong & Co.

It was not necessary that the complaint should allege that three days' notice to quit was given. (Canning v.…

Wagner v. Havard

The court found that the lease had been violated by defendant and gave plaintiff judgment in unlawful…