Farber v. Greenberg

2 Citing cases

  1. Mason v. Home Insurance Co.

    10 Cal.App.2d 696 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935)   Cited 4 times

    Even an assignment of the leases would have created no privity of contract between appellant and respondents, but simply a privity of estate, which would have been completely and finally terminated by abandonment of the premises. ( Farber v. Greenberg, 98 Cal.App. 675 [ 277 P. 534].) [2] The actions herein are predicated upon the theory that appellant became responsible under the original leases by assuming such leases and agreeing to pay the rentals therein reserved.

  2. Saint v. Saint

    120 Cal.App. 15 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)   Cited 19 times

    Under these circumstances, we cannot say the court abused its discretion in denying her the right to amend. ( Kleinclaus v. Dutard, 147 Cal. 245 [ 81 P. 516]; Dukes v. Kellogg, 127 Cal. 563 [ 60 P. 44]; Burling v. Newlands, 112 Cal. 476 [44 P. 810]; Hansen v. Carr, 73 Cal.App. 518 [ 238 P. 1048]; Murphy v. Murphy, 57 Cal.App. 182 [ 207 P. 43]; Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 65 Cal.App. 534 [ 224 P. 1008]; Bailey Trading Co. v. Levy, 72 Cal.App. 339 [ 237 P. 408]; Lapique v. Walsh, 50 Cal.App. 86 [ 195 P. 296]; Farber v. Greenberg, 98 Cal.App. 675 [ 277 P. 534].) Indeed, we are unable to perceive, if the facts alleged in the complaint are true, how appellant can mend her complaint to state a cause of action against respondents at this late date, either upon the theory of an express or a resulting trust.