Eckart

Eckart v. Brown

Good Law
1939 Cal. App. LEXIS 97·34 Cal. App. 2d 182·93 P.2d 212
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 21, 1939Civ. 12145California932 words

Opinion

Opinion

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiff after trial before the court without a jury in an action to recover the purchase price of shares of stock defendant Helen A. Brown appeals.

The essential facts are:

September 10, 1936, H. R. McClintock with defendant Helen A. Brown’s consent assigned his rights under the foregoing agreement to plaintiff by a document reading as follows:

At the same time defendants executed a contract with plaintiff reading as follows:

February 9, 1938, plaintiff made written demand that defendant repurchase the 1875 shares of stock referred to in the agreements of March 28, 1936, and September 10, 1936. A portion of the written demand, which was delivered to defendants, read as follows:

This demand defendants failed to comply with.

The questions necessary to be determined are:

The first question must be answered in the affirmative, and is governed by these principles of law:

(1) Novation is the substitution of a new obligation for an existing one and is made (a) by the substitution of a new obligation between the same parties with intent to extinguish the old obligation, (b) by the substitution of a new debtor in place of the former one with intent to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.