Nelson & Daniels v. Godfrey
Supreme Court of Vermont
General assumpsit. Plea, the general issue. Heard on a referee’s report at the December Term, 1901, Lamoille County, Start, J., presiding. Judgment, pro forma, for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted. The parol evidence in regard to the inscription was admissible for the purpose of determining what the contract in issue was and the true intent and meaning of it. The contract is silent as to the kind and character of the letters of the inscription.
Read the full summary
General assumpsit. Plea, the general issue. Heard on a referee’s report at the December Term, 1901, Lamoille County, Start, J., presiding. Judgment, pro forma, for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted. The parol evidence in regard to the inscription was admissible for the purpose of determining what the contract in issue was and the true intent and meaning of it. The contract is silent as to the kind and character of the letters of the inscription. The writing was not intended to cover the whole contract; SO' parol evidence may be admitted. Dixon v. Blondín, 58 Vt. 689; Alder v. Kennedy, 49…
1Opinion of the CourtStart, J.
Tire plaintiffs and defendant entered into a written contract, whereby the plaintiffs undertook to erect in> a good, workmanlike manner a stone tablet, with the word “Mother” on the top thereof, at the grave of the defendant’s, mother, and a marker at the grave of a child. The defendant. *472was permitted to show by parol evidence that at the time of making and signing the contract, it was agreed by the parties that some part of the inscription should be in raised rather than sunken letters. From this evidence, the referee finds that the word “Mother” was to have been in raised letters, and makes…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Daggett & Graves v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1877
- Lyndon Granite Co. v. FarrarSupreme Court of Vermont · 1880
- Pictorial League v. NelsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1896