Kelly v. Cunningham
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on a promissory note signed by one Farrelly, the defendant’s testator. The answer alleged that the consideration of the note was money paid by the plaintiff to Farrelly, who was a Catholic priest, in trust to be applied towards the building of a Catholic church; and that the plaintiff agreed to receive payment of the note from the revenues of the church, when finished, and not to look to Farrelly personally for payment.
Read the full summary
Contract on a promissory note signed by one Farrelly, the defendant’s testator. The answer alleged that the consideration of the note was money paid by the plaintiff to Farrelly, who was a Catholic priest, in trust to be applied towards the building of a Catholic church; and that the plaintiff agreed to receive payment of the note from the revenues of the church, when finished, and not to look to Farrelly personally for payment. The defendant called the plaintiff to prove these facts; but Morton, J., excluded the evidence, and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff. The defendant alleged…
1Opinion of the CourtHoar, J.
The defendant does not contest the salutary and well settled rule of law that paroi evidence cannot be admitted to vary or control a written contract. But he asks the court to recognize and establish an exception to the rule, in the case of a party calling the opposite party as a witness, under St. 1857, c. 305; on the ground that the dangers against which the rule is intended as a protection would not be incurred by relaxing it to that extent. By that statute, either party is allowed to call the opposite party as a witness. If he is thus made a witness, he is to be treated like any other…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Murphy v. CraigCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1928