McCarthy v. Morris (1911) · DecisionDepot

McCarthy v. Morris

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Dec 28, 1911 No. Civ. No. 978.Published

Before: Lennon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial because there was a substantial conflict in the evidence regarding the parties' obligations under the lease. Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that the lease contained an implied covenant requiring the landlord to replace furnishings.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial based on the insufficiency of the evidence.
Whether the lease contained an implied covenant requiring the landlord to supply new furnishings when needed.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“where there is a substantial conflict of evidence, the granting of a new trial upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence is conclusive upon this court in the absence of a showing that the action of the trial court was an abuse of discretion.”

“Equally untenable is the contention that the lease contained an implied covenant on the part of the landlord to supply new furnishings when needed”

“Upon a reading of the whole record we are unable to perceive any abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in granting a new trial.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

LENNON, P. J.

In the month of April, 1909, plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement in writing, by which the defendant agreed to and did lease from the plaintiff, fully furnished, the property known as the “Hotel Victoria,” in the city and county of San Francisco, for the term of five years.

In the month of May following the defendant went into possession of the leased property, and ever since has been in the use and occupation thereof as the tenant of plaintiff.

By the terms of the lease the defendant was required to maintain to the best of her ability the upkeep of all furnishings during the life of the lease. The defendant became indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $2,000 for rent for the month of April, 1910, but paid on account thereof only the sum of $1,300.75. She refused to pay the balance of $699.25,

[725]

claiming the right under the terms of the lease, and the subsequent acquiescence of the plaintiff, to withhold the same as reimbursement for money to that amount expended by her in replenishing and replacing the original furnishings of the hotel which had become worn and unfit for use.

Plaintiff disputed the right of the defendant, under the terms of the lease or otherwise, to withhold any portion of the stipulated rent for the purpose of refurnishing, and brought this action to recover the unpaid balance of the rental referred to.

This was the only issue raised by the pleadings, and upon a trial of the ease, with a jury, a verdict was had for the defendant.

Thereafter the trial court, upon motion of the plaintiff, granted a new trial. Insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and that the verdict was against law were the only grounds urged for a new trial.

The defendant, in support of her appeal from the order granting a new trial, asserts that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict, notwithstanding the fact that it is conflicting and regardless of the terms of the lease, in this, that both parties acted upon the assumption that the landlord was to purchase new furniture whenever the necessity for the same arose.

McCarthy v. Morris

AI Brief

Synopsis

LENNON, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief