Wright v. Treganza

California Supreme Court

Wright v. Treganza

1 Cal. Unrep. 325

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 17, 1866

DocketNo. 1020

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 325 (Wright v. Treganza) 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

Wright v. Treganza, 1 Cal. Unrep. 325 (Cal. 1866).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAFTER, J.

Appeal from judgment and order denying motion for new trial. As to the appeal from the judgment, there is no statement annexed to the roll, and we find no error in that. The parol agreement set up in. the special answer as a modification of the written one is not averred to have been made at the same time the written was entered into, but thereafter, and the defense was therefore valid in law. All the facts essential to the special defense are contained in the findings.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed.

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

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

SHAFTER, J.

Appeal from judgment and order denying motion for new trial. As to the appeal from the judgment, there is no statement annexed to the roll, and we find no error in that. The parol agreement set up in. the special answer as a modification of the written one is not averred to have been made at the same time the written was entered into, but thereafter, and the defense was therefore valid in law. All the facts essential to the special defense are contained in the findings.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Unrep. 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-treganza-cal-1866.