Skip to main content
· 11/6/1890

Dwyer v. Carroll

Citations

  • 86 Cal. 298
  • 24 P. 1015
  • 1890 Cal. LEXIS 1024

Syllabus

<p>Landlord and Tenant —Repairs — Alterations — Right of Re-entry. — A landlord, after the delivery of possession of leased property to his tenant, has the right, and it is his duty, under sections 1929 and 1941 of the Civil Code, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, to reenter for the purpose of repairing any dilapidations, not occasioned by the ordinary negligence of the tenant, which render the leased building untenantable, and which occur after the beginning of the term; but a reentry cannot be made for the purpose of making extensive alterations, as distinguished from mere necessary repairs, unless the right is expressly reserved in the lease.</p> <p>Id. — Unjustifiable . Acts of Landlord — Trespass — Consent — Removal of Tenant. — A right of entry upon leased premises, by the landlord, for one purpose will not justify the performance of acts for another purpose; and the making of extensive alterations during the term without the consent of the tenant constitutes a trespass; nor will the consent of the tenant to an entry for a short time, for necessary repairs, justify extensive alterations requiring the removal of the tenant and the vacation of the premises for a long period.</p> <p>Id. —Damages for Trespass by Landlord —Profits of Hotel Business — Verdict not Excessive.—A verdict for five hundred dollars, rendered against a landlord in an action of trespass prosecuted by the tenant, is not excessive, where it appears that the tenant, who was a hotel-keeper, was, by reason of extensive alterations in the leased premises, deprived of a large portion of his hotel furniture for several months, and that some of it was broken, and the tenant was compelled to vacate the building within three days after the beginning of the month for which the rent had been paid, and at the time of his ejection was carrying on a business in the building that yielded Mm two hundred dollars net profit per month.</p> <p>Id. — Special Damages — Loss of Business — Pleading.—The

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • addressing defendant’s argument that guilty verdicts for felony murder and involuntary manslaughter were mutually exclusive

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gibson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.