Holloway v. Frick
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 196, July T., 1891, by defendant, Wm. C. Frick, from judgment of C. P. Montour Co., May T., 1890, No. 38|, on verdict for plaintiff, W. K. Holloway.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 196, July T., 1891, by defendant, Wm. C. Frick, from judgment of C. P. Montour Co., May T., 1890, No. 38|, on verdict for plaintiff, W. K. Holloway. Issue to determine amount due b3r defendant on confessed judgment for $10,000. The judgment bond was in the sum of $10,000, conditioned for the payment of a balance, to be ascertained, due by defendant to plaintiff on the purchase of plaintiff’s interest in the firm of W. K. Holloway & Co. Judgment having been entered on the bond and execution issued, on application of the defendant, the court below awarded this issue. At the trial…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mitchell,
The specifications of 'error are thirty-three in number, and fill one hundred and twelve printed pages. It would be profitless to discuss them in detail.
The main burden of the argument is- against the admission of parol evidence to show a different contract from the one in *180writing signed by the parties in April 1887. It is claimed that as no fraud or mistake is alleged, it was not competent to vary this contract by parol evidence. The principle however has no proper application to the present case. It is always competent for the parties to a written contract to…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Knight v. Gulf Refining CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Anstead v. CookSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Weldon & Kelly Co. v. Pavia Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
- Germantown Dairy Co. v. McCallumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Producers Coke Co. v. HooverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.