73 Cal. App. 527 - Wetzler v. Patterson’s Empirical Analysis
1925
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently April 1956
23 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Oakes v. . Delancey · Green v. Frahm · Dutton v. Christie · 33 Cal. App. 19 - Ramish v. Workman · Galbraith v. Wood
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * We think the most reasonable conclusion to be deduced from a consideration of the lease as a whole is that in using the word ‘forfeited’ in the subsequent paragraph of their writing it was the purpose of the parties to ‘make assurance doubly sure’ by declaring what the law itself, in the absence of any provision for a forfeiture, would have declared. It is true that by putting this construction upon the word ‘forfeited’ we in effect deprive it of all practical efficacy. But the same result would follow if we were to adopt the only other possible interpretation of the first-mentioned covenant. That covenant means either that the $700 was intended to be an advance payment of rent or that it was intended to be a mere deposit to secure the performance of the lessee’s covenants to pay the rent. There is no other possible interpretation. If the second of these alternative interpretations should be adopted, then the word ‘forfeited’ in the subsequent paragraph of the writing would be just as inoperative as it would be under the first and more obvious interpretation. That is to say, if we should interpret the earlier covenant as meaning that the $700 was intended to be a deposit by way of security for the payment of the rent, so as to leave some interest in appellant capable of being forfeited, then the provision for forfeiture found in the subsequent clause of the lease would be either a penalty or a provision for liquidated damages. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Loew v. Antonick“where rent is paid in advance the law itself, in the absence of any agreement therefor, authorizes the landlord to retain the rent so paid though he re-enter before the expiration of the term.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kuhlemeier v. Lack
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.