Toogood

Toogood v. Mack

Good Law
1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 190·90 Cal. App. 673·266 P. 375
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 6, 1928Docket No. 4902.California345 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Valentine, J.

This was an action for rescission of contract and for money had and received. The court granted a nonsuit as to both defendants. In appellants’ reply brief counsel state that appellants are willing that the judgment of the court below as to the respondent Mary Elizabeth Hedges as executrix of the estate of Abraham Dayton Hedges, deceased, be affirmed.

This leaves for consideration only the pending appeal against defendant and respondent Frank Mack, and -the sole question on that appeal is whether or not there was a novation effected by the assignment of the agreement which provided for the delivery of certain shares of stock by Mack to Hedges. Appellants state that respondent’s contention as to novation goes to the heart of the question, and “if there was a novation then appellants have no cause against respondent.” And further state: “We agree that if there is a novation then the obligations of Mack are dead beyond recall, but we contend there was- no novation.”

The assignment to Hedges, his acceptance, and an acceptance by appellants, are as follows:

Appellants’ contention is that there was a substitution but no novation because no intent to release Mack was shown, and they…

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.