Harrelson v. Tomich
W. H. HARRELSON v. M. S. G. TOMICH
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Britt (author)
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 — Britt
Britt, C.
The controlling question here is whether it was competent for defendants to prove an alleged oral agreement entered into by the parties to the mortgage, for the foreclosure of which plaintiff prosecutes this action, and contemporaneously with such mortgage, whereby the mortgagor undertook to pay the taxes which might be assessed or levied upon the mortgage or the debt secured by the same; this for the purpose of defeating plaintiff’s claim to interest on, the debt. The court below excluded such evidence, and rendered judgment for plaintiff. Counsel agree that the question presented is substantially the same as that in Daw v. Niles, 104 Cal. 106, which case was yet pending in this court when the briefs were filed on the present appeal. That case having been since decided adversely to the views of defendants, on its authority the judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed.
Haynes, C., and Belcher, C., concurred.
For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.
McFarland, J., Henshaw, J., Temple, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- Daw v. Niles No. 19140 · 1894-09-13
Cited by
- Hotaling v. Montieth S.F. No. 1313. · 1900-05-09
- California State Bank v. Webber No. 15912 · 1895-12-20