Is there any basis in law or fact for defendant's claim that the consideration for the lease was inadequate?

Furthermore, even if the foregoing rule did not here control, there is no basis in law or in fact for defendant's claim that the consideration for the lease was inadequate. In Cushing v. Levi, 117 Cal.App. 94, 100-101, 3 P.2d 958, 960, the court had this to say about a similar contention: 'Appellants seem to contend that, if the value of the land at the time of the

Page 647

Wholly apart from the foregoing discussion, it further appears that trial of plaintiff's claims was had upon its amended and supplemental complaint which contained no claim for specific performance; as appears therein, there was no longer any need for specific performance since plaintiff, in view of defendants' alleged breach, had been compelled to lease other but comparable space albeit at a greater rental than that provided for in the agreement. Under the circumstances it is settled that 'Such amended pleading supplants all prior complaints. It alone will be considered by the reviewing court. [Citations.]' (O'Melia v. Adkins, 73 Cal.App.2d 143, 147, 166 P.2d 298, 301.) Accordingly, unless defendants were entitled to prevail on the demands for rescission contained in their cross-complaint, and our subsequent consideration of that appeal will show the portions of the judgment thereby challenged must be affirmed, there remains with respect to plaintiff's appeal the question whether, if the rule stated in McCulloch v. Liguori, supra, 88 Cal.App.2d 366, 375, 199 P.2d 25, is here applicable, it was error for the trial court to disregard evidence of value produced pursuant thereto and arrive at its own opinion of value determinative of the general damages to be assessed.