Howard v. Stratton

California Supreme Court

Howard v. Stratton

2 P. 263, 64 Cal. 487, 2 Cal. Unrep. 254, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 406

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 29, 1884

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 2 P. 263 (Howard v. Stratton) 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

Howard v. Stratton, 2 P. 263, 64 Cal. 487, 2 Cal. Unrep. 254, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 406 (Cal. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court erred in excluding evidence tending to prove that there was an agreement between Tyson and Stratton, by which the former agreed to let the latter have the rancho on which he lived in consideration of his giving Tyson a home and support during the residue of his life, and that the notes sued on in this action were given by Stratton to Tyson to secure the performance by Stratton of said agreement on his part, and that he had performed the same. The admission of such evidence would not violate the rule which forbids the introduction of parol evidence to contradict or vary a written contract. If the notes were given to secure the execution by Stratton of a promise to support and take care of Tyson, and that promise was fulfilled, the notes were discharged, and parol evidence is admissible to prove that a written agreement has been totally discharged. There is nothing in this which tends to contradict or vary a written contract.

It does not appear that an exception was taken to the ruling of the court on the defendant’s motion to strike out the testimony of John Treat, and we cannot in the absence of an exception review said ruling.

Judgment and order revérsed.

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

Per Curiam.

The court erred in excluding evidence tending to prove that there was an agreement between Tyson and Stratton, by which the former agreed to let the latter have the rancho on which he lived in consideration of his giving Tyson a home and support during the residue of his life, and that the notes sued on in this action were given by Stratton to Tyson to secure the performance by Stratton of said agreement on his part, and that he had performed the same. The admission of such evidence would not violate the rule which forbids the introduction of parol evidence to contradict or vary a written contract. If the notes were given to secure the execution by Stratton of a promise to support and take care of Tyson, and that promise was fulfilled, the notes were discharged, and parol evidence is admissible to prove that a written agreement has been totally discharged. There is nothing in this which tends to contradict or vary a written contract.

It does not appear that an exception was taken to the ruling of the court on the defendant’s motion to strike out the testimony of John Treat, and we cannot in the absence of an exception review said ruling.

Judgment and order revérsed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 P. 263, 64 Cal. 487, 2 Cal. Unrep. 254, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-stratton-cal-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack