Whiting v. Heslep
4 Cal. 327
Opinion
1. It is not denied that some of the counts in the declaration were good. The demurrer being to the whole declaration, was therefore good.
2. A parol agreement, varying the terms of a contract under seal, is properly enforced under the indebitatus assumpsit, when the parol agreement has been executed. (2 Cal. 584.)
3. The form of the execution of the contract made it the personal contract of the defendants, upon which they alone were liable.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Whiting v. Heslep, 4 Cal. 327 (Cal. 1854).
4 Cal. 327 (Whiting v. Heslep) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Brandt v. Brandt
174 P. 55 (California Supreme Court, 1918)
Ferguson v. Burt
2 Utah 388 (Utah Supreme Court, 1880)