Baird v. Milford Land & Lumber Co.
Citations
- 89 Cal. 552
- 26 P. 1084
- 1891 Cal. LEXIS 853
Syllabus
<p>Lease for Lumbering Purposes — Construction—Amount of Rental. — Under a lease for general lumbering purposes, providing that the lessee should cut and remove all the merchantable timber fit for saw-logs, at the rate of at least one million five hundred thousand feet the first year and two million feet every year thereafter, and pay therefor one dollar per thousand feet, the payments to he made in equal quarterly installments each year, provided, however, that if they should not remove the amount of timber specified to he taken in any one year, they should nevertheless pay therefor and remove the same in any subsequent year without further charge or pay, the lease to continue twenty years, with the privilege of renewal at a rent of ten dollars a year in addition to “the stumpage rent hereby reserved,” the lessor is entitled only to the value of the merchantable timber on the land fit for saw-logs at one dollar per thousand, payable in the quarterly payments fixed by the lease until the whole of such timber is paid for, and is not entitled to recover the quarterly payments, as rent or royalty, during the whole time that the lessee is in possession, whether the timber has been removed or not, after the amount of such rental equals the value of all of the merchantable timber fit for saw-logs.</p> <p>Id.—Renewal — Bad Faith —Negligence.—Under the terms of the contract, if at the end of the first term all the timber shall have been removed from the land, or if not removed, it be made to appear that the failure to remove it was caused by bad faith, negligence, or want of diligence, it seems that the lessees are not given the righ t of renewal for an additional term at a rental of ten dollars per year, whatever may be the meaning of the expression “ stumpage rent hereby reserved.”</p> <p>Id. — Percentage for Waste.—In an action to recover the rent due under the lease, the refusal of the court to add ten per cent for waste in sawing to the amount of merchantable timber fo
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- rejecting an appellant’s facial challenge to a statute when counsel conceded at oral argument that the statute might be valid “in some instances”
- “An as-applied challenge addresses whether a statute is unconstitutional on the facts of a particular case or to a particular party.” (citation and punctuation omitted)
- “An as-applied challenge addresses whether a statute is unconstitutional on the facts of a particular case or to a particular party.” (citation omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Paterson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.