Case ID: cal-unrep_1/html/0325-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      SHAFTER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TIERY WRIGHT, Appellant, v. THOMAS TREGANZA, Respondent.
    No. 1020;
    December 17, 1866.
    Appeal — Judgment-roll—Statement.—An appeal brought up on a judgment-roll does not need a statement to be annexed to the judgment-roll.
    Evidence. — An Answer Setting Up a Parol Modification of the written contract sued upon is good if the modification is alleged in it as having been made subsequently to the mating of the contract.
    APPEAL from Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento County.
    H. H. Hartley for appellant; F. F. Taylor for respondent.
   SHAFTER, J.

Appeal from judgment and order denying motion for new trial. As to the appeal from the judgment, there is no statement annexed to the roll, and we find no error in that. The parol agreement set up in. the special answer as a modification of the written one is not averred to have been made at the same time the written was entered into, but thereafter, and the defense was therefore valid in law. All the facts essential to the special defense are contained in the findings.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed.

We concur: Sawyer, J.; Sanderson, J.; Currey, C. J.; Rhodes, J.