California Securities Co. v. Grosse

46 P.2d 170, 3 Cal. 2d 732, 1935 Cal. LEXIS 477
California Supreme Court·Decided June 7, 1935·No. L. A. No. 14373; L. A. No. 14374·Published·Cited by 6 cases

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

California Securities Co. v. Grosse, 46 P.2d 170, 3 Cal. 2d 732, 1935 Cal. LEXIS 477 (Cal. 1935).

46 P.2d 170 (California Securities Co. v. Grosse) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Garcia v. World Savings, FSB
183 Cal. App. 4th 1031 (California Court of Appeal, 2010)
Sutherland v. Barclays American/Mortgage Corp.
53 Cal. App. 4th 299 (California Court of Appeal, 1997)
Harrison v. Hanson
331 P.2d 1084 (California Court of Appeal, 1958)
Walther v. Occidental Life Insurance Co.
104 P.2d 551 (California Court of Appeal, 1940)
Engelbertson v. Loan & Building Assn.
58 P.2d 647 (California Supreme Court, 1936)
Loeb v. Christie
57 P.2d 1303 (California Supreme Court, 1936)