Wright v. Treganza (1866) · DecisionDepot

Wright v. Treganza

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

California Supreme Court Dec 17, 1866 No. No. 1020Published

Before: Currey, Rhodes, Sanderson, Sawyer, Shafter

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a parol agreement modifying a written contract is a valid defense when it is alleged to have been made after the execution of the written agreement.

Issues

Whether a parol agreement modifying a written contract constitutes a valid defense when made after the written contract's execution.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the defense was therefore valid in law.”

“All the facts essential to the special defense are contained in the findings.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento County.

SHAFTER, J. Appeal from judgment and order denying motion for new trial. As to the appeal from the judgment, there is no statement annexed to the roll, and we find no error in that. The parol agreement set up in. the special answer as a modification of the written one is not averred to have been made at the same time the written was entered into, but thereafter, and the defense was therefore valid in law. All the facts essential to the special defense are contained in the findings.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed.

We concur: Sawyer, J.; Sanderson, J.; Currey, C. J.; Rhodes, J.

Wright v. Treganza

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief