Hewlett v. Miller

California Supreme Court

Hewlett v. Miller

63 Cal. 185, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 401

DecidedFebruary 20, 1883

StatusPublished

This text of 63 Cal. 185 (Hewlett v. Miller) 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

Hewlett v. Miller, 63 Cal. 185, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 401 (Cal. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The opinion in this case rendered by Department One is hereby approved and adopted as the opinion of the court in Bank, and the folloAving additional authorities are referred to in support of the same. (Joslyn v. Wyman, 5 Allen, 62; Stone v. Lane, 10 Allen, 74; Upton v. National Bank, 120 Mass. 153.)

Judgment and order affirmed. Rehearing denied.

Opinion of the Department:

In an action for the specific performance of a written contract to convey real estate, it is competent for the defendant to shoAV that by a subsequent paroi agreement he was to retain the title until other money than that named in the original contract (which had been loaned by him) should be repaid; and he may properly refuse to convey until such other money be repaid. (Clark v. Grant, 14 Ves. Jr. 519; Quinn v. Roath, 37 Conn. 16.) This is practically the only question involved in this case. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The opinion in this case rendered by Department One is hereby approved and adopted as the opinion of the court in Bank, and the folloAving additional authorities are referred to in support of the same. (Joslyn v. Wyman, 5 Allen, 62; Stone v. Lane, 10 Allen, 74; Upton v. National Bank, 120 Mass. 153.)

Judgment and order affirmed. Rehearing denied.

Opinion of the Department:

In an action for the specific performance of a written contract to convey real estate, it is competent for the defendant to shoAV that by a subsequent paroi agreement he was to retain the title until other money than that named in the original contract (which had been loaned by him) should be repaid; and he may properly refuse to convey until such other money be repaid. (Clark v. Grant, 14 Ves. Jr. 519; Quinn v. Roath, 37 Conn. 16.) This is practically the only question involved in this case. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 Cal. 185, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hewlett-v-miller-cal-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack