Whiting v. Heslep
SAMUEL A. WHITING v. WILLIAM G. HESLEP, A. W. LUCKETT, P. M. D. COLLINS, FREDERICK SALTER and J. B. MESSICK
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Heydeneeldt (author), William J. Murray, Jr.
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 — Heydeneeldt
*Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt [330] delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.
1. It is not denied that some of the counts in the declaration were good. The demurrer being to the whole declaration, was therefore good.
2. A parol agreement, varying the terms of a contract under seal, is properly enforced under the indebitatus assumpsit, when the parol agreement has been executed. (2 Cal. 584.)
3. The form of the execution of the contract made it the personal contract of the defendants, upon which they alone were liable.
Judgment affirmed.
Cites, in this corpus
- Green v. Robert Wells & Co. · 1852-10-15
Cited by
- Brandt v. Brandt L. A. No. 4464. Department One. · 1918-07-19