Treadwell v. Himmelmann
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fifteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Action on the following instrument: “Borrowed and received of J. P. Treadwell, one thousand dollars, in currency, to be paid on demand. “ San Francisco, February 7, 1868.” ( “A. HlKMELMANN.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Fifteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Action on the following instrument: “Borrowed and received of J. P. Treadwell, one thousand dollars, in currency, to be paid on demand. “ San Francisco, February 7, 1868.” ( “A. HlKMELMANN. The defendant, in his answer, as a special defense, set up that at the date of the instrument, the plaintiff claimed to own a lot of land in San Francisco, which was charged with two liens for assessments for improving the street in front of it, amounting to- $1107.82, which liens were owned by .Wilcox and Hixon,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Crockett, J.:
The evidence offered by the defendant in support of the special defense set up in the answer was improperly excluded. It did not contradict or vary the written instrument declared upon; on the contrary, the offer was to prove an executed parol agreement, in the nature of an accord and satisfaction. There is no difference in principle between this case and Hapgood v. Swords (2 Bailey S. C. 305), which was an action on a promissory note; and the defense was *11that at the time of the execution of the note it was agreed by parol that if the defendant would procure a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bradley v. BentleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1836
- Farnham v. InghamSupreme Court of Vermont · 1833
3Cited by5 opinions
- Schultz v. NobleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Silva v. GordoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- SECURITY FIRST NAT. BANK OF LA v. RospawCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- Labarge v. Elutia, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2025
- Wright v. KrouskopWyoming Supreme Court · 1940