Kelly v. Frisbie

California Supreme Court

Kelly v. Frisbie

1 Cal. Unrep. 408

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 24, 1867

DocketNo. 1493

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 408 (Kelly v. Frisbie) 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

Kelly v. Frisbie, 1 Cal. Unrep. 408 (Cal. 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

SAWYER, J.

The agreement of October 1, 1860, does not include the three thousand dollar note of Vallejo, dated October 1, 1859. The second agreement of Frisbie of October 1, 1861, indorsed upon, and extending the time for, the performance of the said agreement of October 1, 1861, is, by its terms, limited to that agreement. Parol evidence would be inadmissible to show that it included the note. The complaint, therefore, does not state a cause of action, and the demurrer was properly sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

We concur: Rhodes, J.; Currey, C. J.; Sanderson, J.

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

SAWYER, J.

The agreement of October 1, 1860, does not include the three thousand dollar note of Vallejo, dated October 1, 1859. The second agreement of Frisbie of October 1, 1861, indorsed upon, and extending the time for, the performance of the said agreement of October 1, 1861, is, by its terms, limited to that agreement. Parol evidence would be inadmissible to show that it included the note. The complaint, therefore, does not state a cause of action, and the demurrer was properly sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

We concur: Rhodes, J.; Currey, C. J.; Sanderson, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Unrep. 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-frisbie-cal-1867.