Whiting v. Heslep

California Supreme Court

Whiting v. Heslep

4 Cal. 327

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1854

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 Cal. 327 (Whiting v. Heslep) 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

Whiting v. Heslep, 4 Cal. 327 (Cal. 1854).

Pincite

Opinion

*Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt

[330] delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.

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

*Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt

[330] delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Cal. 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whiting-v-heslep-cal-1854.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack