Hawthorne v. Siegel
Citations
- 88 Cal. 159
- 25 P. 1114
- 1891 Cal. LEXIS 665
Syllabus
<p>Trespass — Compelling Tenants to Vacate — Change in Construction of Premises — Measure of Damages. — The measure of damages recoverable for a trespass upon leased premises, and forcibly changing the construction thereof, by which the tenants were compelled to abandon their place of business and to vacate the premises, is the amount which will compensate them for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not.</p> <p>Id. — Loss of Water Privilege. — The loss of a water privilege which the tenants had acquired for the purposes of their business, and which the trespass of the defendant caused them to abandon, is an injury proximately caused by the trespass, for which they should he compensated.</p> <p>Id.—Compensation for Loss of Leasehold Interest.—The tenants are entitled to be compensated for the amount of any loss occasioned by their being compelled to abandon the leased premises, in respect to the value of their leasehold interest for the unexpired term, and the value of any advantages constituting a part of or directly growing out of the leasehold interest, and such damages are not in their nature remote or speculative.</p> <p>Id. — Evidence of Value of Leasehold. — A question put to one of the tenants as to what the leasehold was worth to them, if erroneous, is harmless, if the answer plainly indicates that the value of which he testified was the market value.</p> <p>Id.—Expenses of Removal—’Loss of Improvements.—In estimating the damages done to the lessees, it is proper for the jury to consider evidence concerning the expenses of the enforced removal of the lessees from the premises to another place of business, and also evidence regarding any damage which might result from their being deprived of the use of improvements abandoned by them.</p> <p>Id.—Proximate Cause of Loss — Intervening Agencies. — That which is the actual cause of the loss, whether operating directly, or by putting intervening agencies, the ope
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- accepting petition for voluntary dis- cipline and imposing a review panel reprimand where lawyer admit- ted she violated Rule 8.4 (a) (4
- attorney admitted to violating Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 8.4 (a) (4
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Foote
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.