Strader v. Lambeth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Error to the Jefferson Circuit, Assümísit, Case 144. Parol evidence is inadmissible to vaiy the terms of a written contract, unless there be fraud, mistake or usury; but when the parties admit that tile contract was . otherwise than as appears by the writing, this rule has no application.
Read the full summary
Error to the Jefferson Circuit, Assümísit, Case 144. Parol evidence is inadmissible to vaiy the terms of a written contract, unless there be fraud, mistake or usury; but when the parties admit that tile contract was . otherwise than as appears by the writing, this rule has no application. Nor does the rule apply to strangers 1o the writing.— U Qreenleaf337; ^Starkie, 575.) A beneficial interest in a steam Boat, without holding the legal title, will render the peison holding such interest liable for services done or supplies furnished for the boat: (3 Kent's Com. 123; 16 East’s Rep. 174;…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Simpson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The decision of the Court below, that the bill of sale from Reeder, made defendant, Strader, legal part owner of the boat Houma, and parol evidence was inadmissible io show that the bill of sale although absolute on its face, *590created in reality only a trust, to which effect the Court instructed the jury, we deem erroneous. Between the parlies to the instrument, such evidence, it is true, is only admissible, when the party offering it, first shows that the writing, either by fraud or mistake, was drawn differently from what the parties intended,…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Williams v. National Cash Register Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1914
- Washburn & Moen Manufacturing Co. v. Chicago Galvanized Wire Fence Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1884
- Carmack v. DrumWashington Supreme Court · 1903
- Ryan v. Logan County BankCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
- Bank of California v. WhiteNevada Supreme Court · 1879
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.