Hibbard v. Chipman

California Supreme Court Dec 15, 1855 No. No. 849Published

Before: Heydenfeldt, Murray

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a right to reform a lease does not pass to an assignee through a simple assignment of the lease. Consequently, the assignee is limited to the plain terms of the lease agreement.

Issues

Whether the right to reform a lease passes to an assignee through a simple assignment of the lease.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“He took with his eyes open, and can have no claim except to the extent given by the plain import of the terms of the lease.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from Fourth Judicial District, San Francisco County.

HEYDENFELDT, J. — Whatever rights the original lessees may have had to come into a court of equity to have the lease reformed, certainly no such right passed to the plain[11]tiff by their simple assignment of the lease to him. He took with his eyes open, and can have no claim except to the extent given by the plain import of the terms of the lease. This view renders it unnecessary' to consider the merits of the bill.

Decree affirmed.

I concur: Murray, C. J.

More from California Supreme Court

People v. Wende (1979)
People v. Watson (1956)
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
People v. Kelly (2006)
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
People v. Lewis (2021)
In Re Estrada (1965)
Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
People v. Marsden (1970)

Related research