California Securities Co. v. Grosse

California Supreme Court

California Securities Co. v. Grosse

3 Cal. 2d 732

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 7, 1935

DocketL. A. No. 14373; L. A. No. 14374

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Cal. 2d 732 (California Securities Co. v. Grosse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

California Securities Co. v. Grosse, 3 Cal. 2d 732 (Cal. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

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. 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 Pac. (2d) 207].) 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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. 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 Pac. (2d) 207].) 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Cal. 2d 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/california-securities-co-v-grosse-cal-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack