California Securities Co. v. Grosse
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
3 Cal.2d 732 (1935) CALIFORNIA SECURITIES COMPANY, Respondent, v. CHARLES E. GROSSE et al., Appellants.
L. A. No. 14373. Supreme Court of California. In Bank.
June 7, 1935. Hiram E. Casey and Horace W. Danforth for Appellants.
Swanwick, Donnelly & Proudfit, R. W. Proudfit and Donald O. Welton for Respondent.
THE COURT.
Motions have been made by plaintiff and respondent to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment in each of the above actions for foreclosure of mortgages on real property. [1] Defendants Charles E. Grosse and Hester M. Grosse appealed on the ground that the prevailing economic depression made payment of their loan impossible, and therefore constituted the defense of impossibility of performance. It was further urged that plaintiff was estopped by reason of an alleged oral agreement of extension made by its officers. That the depression cannot constitute a defense to a foreclosure proceeding is clear. (Brennan v. American Trust Co., S. F. No. 15009, ante, p. 635 [45 PaCal.2d 207].) [2] The lower court, considering conflicting evidence, found against the defense of estoppel; and it is settled, of course, that an unexecuted oral modification of a written contract is ineffective. (Civ. Code, sec. 1698.)
The motions are granted and the judgments are affirmed.
Cited by
- Garcia v. World Savings, FSB B214822 · 2010-04-09
- Sutherland v. Barclays American/Mortgage Corp. B103350 · 1997-03-05
- Harrison v. Hanson Civ. 23021 · 1958-11-20