Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

63 Cal. 185

Hewlett v. Miller

California Supreme Court

Decided February 20, 1883

California Supreme Court · decided 1883-02-20

<p>Specific Performance—Written Contract—Subsequent Parol Agreement.— The action was brought to specifically enforce a written contract to convey real estate. At the trial the defendant was allowed to show that by a subsequent paroi agreement he was to retain the title until certain money loaned by him to the plaintiff, and not named in the original contract, should be repaid. Held, that the evidence was competent.</p>

Relies on Upton v. National Bank of South Reading · Quinn v. Roath

Decided 1883-02-20

Per Curiam.

¶1The opinion in this case rendered by Department One is hereby approved and adopted as the opinion of the court in Bank, and the folloAving additional authorities are referred to in support of the same. (Joslyn v. Wyman, 5 Allen, 62; Stone v. Lane, 10 Allen, 74; Upton v. National Bank, 120 Mass. 153.)

¶2Judgment and order affirmed. Rehearing denied.

¶3Opinion of the Department:

Per Curiam.

¶4In an action for the specific performance of a written contract to convey real estate, it is competent for the defendant to shoAV that by a subsequent paroi agreement he was to retain the title until other money than that named in the original contract (which had been loaned by him) should be repaid; and he may properly refuse to convey until such other money be repaid. (Clark v. Grant, 14 Ves. Jr. 519; Quinn v. Roath, 37 Conn. 16.) This is practically the only question involved in this case. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

/63/cal/185 · .json · Public domain