Becerra v. Hochberg
| Decision Date | 28 June 1961 |
| Citation | 14 Cal.Rptr. 101,193 Cal.App.2d 431 |
| Parties | Salvador BECERRA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Leo HOCHBERG, et al., Defendants, Leo Hochberg, Appellant. Civ. 24940. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Huston T. Carlyle and Frank Renzi, Jr., Los Angeles, for appellant.
Milton Fenton, Los Angeles, for respondent.
The plaintiff leased to the defendant for a five year term some property on Brooklyn Avenue in Los Angeles 'to be used as chicken and egg and live poultry market and for no other purpose.' The defendant paid the first month's rent, failed to pay for a number of months, then resumed paying and had continued to make the monthly payments up to the trial. The judgment, for the rent not paid for a spell, is attacked on the ground that the lease was for a use made illegal by the city's zoning ordinance. The illegality of the lease was not made to appear, and we are affirming the judgment.
Although there were two defendants, the judgment ran against only one; only he is appealing. We shall use the singular in referring to plaintiff's adversaries. Defendant had lived in the neighborhood for a long time before he leased the plaintiff's premises, and presumably was aware of the fact that there had been a live poultry market next door just before the plaintiff purchased his place. The plaintiff gave him the keys to his place some two or three months before the lease was signed, in order to enable him to get a bid on work that he contemplated having done. Before the defendant signed up he had obtained a permit from the city to make his planned alterations, the city's Department of Building and Safety having advised the city clerk that 'The L.A.M.C. (does) permit a Live Poultry Market at: 2104 Brooklyn Ave.'
With the permit in hand and the lease signed, the defendant had begun rather extensive alterations when he received, from the Department of Building and Safety, a notice to stop all work, because It was, we surmise, the plans for the 'eviscerating room' that brought the project into disrepute. In any event, the defendant stopped the work; stopped paying rent; applied for and was denied a variance; appealed, and obtained a variance; then resumed paying rent and continued so doing up to the time of trial.
The position that the defendant takes on this appeal is foreshadowed in his answer when he averred: 'That the real property noted in the lease herein sued upon was at the time of the making of the lease erroneously supposed by both parties thereto to be zoned in such a way as to allow a live chicken and egg poultry market with incidental...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Academy Spires, Inc. v. Brown
... ... Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 157 Misc. 869, 284 N.Y.S. 966 (N.Y.City Ct.1935); Becerra v. Hochberg, 193 Cal.App.2d 431, 14 Cal.Rptr ... 101 (D.Ct.App.1961), and Howell v. City of Hamburg Co., 165 Cal. 172, 131 P. 130 (Sup.Ct.1913) ... ...
-
San Mateo County v. Palomar Holding Co.
...court is section 2(n) of ordinance number 977. [The court may not take judicial notice of a municipal ordinance. Becerra v. Hochberg (1961), 193 Cal.App.2d 431, 14 Cal.Rptr. 101; Johnson v. A. Schilling & Co. (1959), 170 Cal.App.2d 318, 325, 339 P.2d 139.] Hence, it is impossible to determi......
- Bosch v. Standard Oil Co.
-
Appendix II Evidence Code
...366, 24 Cal.Rptr. 461 (1962); County of Los Angeles v. Bartlett, 203 Cal.App.2d 523, 21 Cal.Rptr. 776 (1962); Becerra v. Hochberg, 193 Cal.App.2d 431, 14 Cal.Rptr. 101 (1961). It seems safe to assume that ordinances of sister states and of territories and possessions of the United States wo......