Chipman v. Emeric
Citations
- 3 Cal. 273
Syllabus
<p>At common law there was no forfeiture of an estate for years, for the non-payment of rent, nor for the commission of waste.</p> <p>By the Statute of Gloucester, 6 Ed. 1, the remedy of forfeiture was given for waste, and it was expressly confined to the place wherein the waste was committed.</p> <p>The Statute of California, confines the remedy to the recovery of treble damages.</p> <p>By the 13th section of the act, concerning forcible entries and unlawful detainers, it was the intention of the legislature to make the non-payment of rent work a forfeiture of the estate of the tenant. But to effect this, the rent must be demanded on the day it becomes due, and at a late hour of the day.</p> <p>Where the record shows no demand of the rent, there can be no forfeiture.</p>
Judges: Heydenfeldt
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Baugh v. Consumers Associates, Ltd.California Court of Appeal· 1966-04-25· cited 25×
- McGlynn v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court· 1864-07-01· cited 24×
- Johnson v. SanchesCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1942-12-15· cited 17×
- Budaeff v. HuberCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1961-07-20· cited 9×
- Schuman v. SchumanMichigan Supreme Court· 1921-12-22· cited 6×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced 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.