Hill v. Beatty

Citations

• 61 Cal. 292
• 1882 Cal. LEXIS 600

Syllabus

<p>Motion to Open Judgment.—An order denying a motion to open a judgment made after a new trial had been denied, and more than six months after the entry of judgment, affirmed on the ground that the motion came too late.—McKee and Myrick, JJ., being also of the opinion that the moving party did not show a case of excusable neglect.</p> <p>New Trial—Notice—Statement.—A notice of motion for a new trial failed to state whether the motion would be made upon affidavits, or the minutes of the Court, or a bill of exceptions, or a statement of the case; and the statement subsequently filed contained no specifications of errors, or of insufficiency of evidence.</p> <p>Iidd: The motion for a new trial was not made as prescribed by Sections 658 and 659, C. C. P.</p> <p>Lease—Repairs—Construction of Contract.—Action for rent upon a renewed lease. The original lease contained a covenant for renewal, and at the same time the lessors contracted in writing to construct certain buildings on the leased premises, and that if they failed to do so, no rent after the first installment should be paid until such improvements are completed. The buildings were not constructed; but all the installments for rent were paid, except the last installment for the second year. The answer, besides denying that any rent was unpaid, set up as affirmative matter the failure of the plaintiffs to construct the buildings contracted for, and also that the plaintiffs had failed to repair; but the court, on motion, struck out all of the answers, except the denial.</p> <p>Held: There was no error. There is no covenant to repair in either lease, and the covenant for improvements on the premises ended with the original lease.</p>