¶1 I agree with what is said in the foregoing opinion concerning the forty shares, and, therefore, concur in the reversal of the judgment and order appealed from in the case of Beeson v. Wright.
159 Cal. 133
112 P 1091
Wright v. Beeson
Decided January 4, 1911
California Supreme Court · decided 1911-01-04
<p>Sale—Contract in Writing—Modification—Executed Oral Agreement.—A written contract for the sale of a specified number of shares of corporate stock, a part of which was the subject of litigation and in the custody of the court, which provided for a certain price for the shares in litigation and a different price for the balance, but that no part of the agreed purchase price was to be paid until all the shares should be delivered and transferred, or ready to be transferred, on the books of the corporation, to the purchaser, can be altered or changed only by a contract in writing, or by an executed oral agreement.</p> <p>Id.—Part Payment Before Maturity—Unexecuted Oral Promise to Pay Balance.—A voluntary part payment by the purchaser on the price of the stock on deposit in court, before it was in condition for transfer, and his oral promise to pay the remainder before it became due, did not have the effect to modify the original contract as to the time for the payment of such stock. Such voluntary part payment before maturity did not constitute a consideration for the . oral promise, since it did not benefit the purchaser, nor cause prejudice to the seller.</p> <p>Id.—Severability of Contract—Purchase of Part in Pursuance of Executed Oral Agreement.—The written contract, with respect to the shares of stock not in the custody of the court, and for which a different price was to be paid, was severable and subject to modification by a subsequent executed oral agreement for the purchase and payment thereof, on terms different from those contained in the original contract.</p> <p>Id.—Statute of Frauds—Promise to Pay Note of Another.—A special promise to pay the note of a third person, not based upon any consideration, and not in writing, is void.</p>
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1966
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1911-01-04
View the full empirical analysis of this case →