Peterson v. Chaix
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sonoma County, and from an order denying a new trial. Emmett Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
In their petition for rehearing plaintiffs urged that the written memorandum did not constitute the whole of the agreement between the parties; but that there were conditions, resting in parol, which were an essential part thereof, and that the case presents an instance "where a verbal contract is entire, and a part only in part performance is reduced to writing," and hence parol testimony was admissible to establish the complete agreement. We do not think that an extended discussion is called for in disposing of plaintiffs' contention. It may be conceded, and as we understand defendants'…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Fawkner v. Lew Smith Wall Paper Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1893
- Hale Bros. v. MillikenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
3Cited by31 opinions
- Harding v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Standard Box Co. v. Mutual Biscuit Co.California Court of Appeal · 1909
- Barnhart Aircraft, Inc. v. PrestonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Buffalo Arms, Inc. v. Remler Co.California Court of Appeal · 1960
- Calpetro Producers Syndicate v. Chas M. Woods Co.California Supreme Court · 1929
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.