Legal Opinion

Foot, Schulze & Co. v. Skeffington

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided February 27, 1925PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNuessle, J.

This case involves the application of the so-called “parol evidence rule.” The question for determination arose in this wise. The plaintiff brought the action to recover on a written contract of guaranty known in the record as “Exhibit A.” Among other things, this writing provided: “It is mutually understood and agreed that this guaranty shall be binding on every party who signs it, whether same be signed by any other person or not.” In bis answer the defendant Bixby alleged “that on or about the 16th day of January, 1922 he signed the paper set out in plaintiff’s complaint as Exhibit A but…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. First State Bank v. KellyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Security Savings Bank v. RhodesNebraska Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Reiner v. CrawfordWashington Supreme Court · 1901
  4. West v. W. A. McLaughlin & Co.'s TrusteeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1908
  5. Sargent v. CooleyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1902

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Baird v. StephanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Halliburton Company v. McPheronNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Carufel v. KountsNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Kryl v. MechalsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Tenney Co. v. ThomasNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1931

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API