Remington v. Detroit Dental Manufacturing Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Eeeoe to review a judgment of the circuit court for St. Croix county: James O’ETeill, Judge. This was an action upon a promissory note, commenced in justice’s court. In the circuit’ court the action was tried without a jury.
Read the full summary
Eeeoe to review a judgment of the circuit court for St. Croix county: James O’ETeill, Judge. This was an action upon a promissory note, commenced in justice’s court. In the circuit’ court the action was tried without a jury. There; was no dispute in the facts, and the court found them to he, in substance, as follows: That on the 29th of November, 1895, at the city of Eau Claire, the plaintiff in error and one Ames executed and delivered to the defendant in error their promissory note in writing, payable two months after date, for $24, with interest at eight per cent, per annum after due; that…
1Opinion of the CourtWikslow, J.
The alleged oral agreement by which Remington was not to be liable upon the note was no defense. A written contract cannot be varied or controlled by a contemporaneous oral agreement. Gillman v. Henry, 53 Wis. 465; Kulenkamp v. Groff, 71 Mich. 675; S. C. 1 L. R. A. 594, and note. Want of consideration is, however, a perfect defense between the original parties to commercial paper as it is to any other contract, and parol testimony is competent to prove the absence or failure of consideration. Hubbard v. Galusha, 23 Wis. 398.
In the present case the plaintiff in error had received the dental…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kulenkamp v. GroffMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Turle v. SargentSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Gillmann v. HenryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Hubbard v. GalushaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1868
3Cited by3 opinions
- T. F. Pagel Lumber Co. v. WebsterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
- Estate of McAskill v. McLeodWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
- Holmes v. WebbWisconsin Supreme Court · 1917