Wilson v. Crosnoe
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Mississippi Circuit Gou/rt. — Hon. H C. O’Bryan, Judge. The evidence of Crosnoe, attempting to explain the meaning of the note, should not have been admitted. Parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissable to contradict or vary the terms of a written instrument. 1 Story on Contracts, see. 820, etseq.; Frissellv. Mayer, 13 Mo. App. 331; Jones v. Shaw, 67 Mo. 667; Henshaw v. Button, 59 Mo. 140. The instructions were mislead-, ing.
1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, P. J.
— The evidence in this case tended to show the following facts: The plaintiff was owner *242of a farm, which he had rented to various tenants. At the date of the instrument hereinafter set forth there was due to the plaintiff from his tenants a cash rent of $660. The defendant had made advances to the tenants, for which he claimed a lien on their crops, subject to the paramount landlord’s lien of the plaintiff for rent. In January, 1889, the plaintiff’s agent, the defendant and the tenants met on the farm, and the defendant as well as the plaintiff’s agent believing that the crops of the te.nants…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Brown v. WeldonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Wade v. ScottSupreme Court of Missouri · 1842
- Gamache v. GrimmSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
3Cited by1 opinion
- Vorchetto v. SappenfieldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1929