Pearsall v. Henry
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion rendered in Bank and in Department One. Louis Titus, H. M. Wright, and Titus, Wright & Creed, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the Court
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] A rehearing of this appeal was ordered after decision in Department. Upon further consideration, we adhere to the Department opinion. As stated therein, section 1698 of the Civil Code must be held to be inapplicable where the offer is to prove a substitution of a new agreement for the prior written agreement. This is very clearly shown in the opinion in Guidery v. Green, 95 Cal. 630, [30 P. 786 ], where it was held that one sued up a written agreement could show…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Guidery v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Farmers' Natl. Gold Bank v. StoverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Adler v. FriedmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by78 opinions
- Brown v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Monarco v. Lo GrecoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Bennett v. PotterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Stewart Lamle v. Mattel, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- Lacy Manufacturing Co. v. Gold Crown Mining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1942
73 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.