Perrine v. Marsden (1867) · DecisionDepot

Perrine v. Marsden

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1867Published

Before: Sanderson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for waste because they did not establish a reversionary interest, and failed to justify an injunction against removing a structure because they did not prove the remaining security would be inadequate.

Issues

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to restrain the commission of waste.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to restrain the removal of a structure based on the impairment of security for rent.

Disposition. Injunction dissolved.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“So far as this may be considered an action to restrain the commission of waste, it cannot be sustained upon the facts disclosed in the record.”

“To maintain the action upon that ground, it is not sufficient to show that the security will be lessened in value. It must appear that it will be left inadequate”

Synopsis

Injunction to Restrain Waste.—An injunction will not be granted at the suit of the landlord against the tenant or his assigns, to restrain the commission of waste by the removal from the demised premises of a building erected by the tenant, if it appears that the landlord is not entitled to the reversion.

Injunction to Restrain Removal op Building by Tenant.—An injunction will not be granted at the suit of the landlord to restrain the tenant from removing from the demised premises a building erected by him, if it appears that the security for the rent will thereby be merely impaired and lessened in value. It must appear that such security will be left inadequate to secure the rent.

By the Court, Sanderson, J.: So far as this may be considered an action to restrain the commission of waste, it cannot be sustained upon the facts disclosed in the record. It is not only not averred in the complaint that the plaintiffs are entitled to the reversion, [18]but it is shown by the uncontradieted affidavit of Green that they are not. (Taylor’s Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 686.)

The same is true of the case in its aspect as an action to restrain the defendants from removing the double house, upon the ground that the security for the rent will be impaired by its removal. To maintain the action upon that ground, it is not sufficient to show that the security will be lessened in value. It must appear that it will be left inadequate, which is not shown to be the case, but quite the contrary. (Buckout v. Swift, 27 Cal. 433.)

Let the injunction be dissolved.

Perrine v. Marsden

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief