Barlow's Admr. v. Comstock's Admr.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 66 — Action by Lucinda Comstock’s Adme. against P. G. Barlow’s Admr. for a Settlement of His Estate. APPEAL FROM WASHINGTON CIRCUIT COURT. Judgment for Plaintiff and Defendant Appeals. CLASSIFICATION OF QUESTIONS DISCUSSED. 1. Parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a written contract unless there is allegation of fraud or mistake.
Read the full summary
Case 66 — Action by Lucinda Comstock’s Adme. against P. G. Barlow’s Admr. for a Settlement of His Estate. APPEAL FROM WASHINGTON CIRCUIT COURT. Judgment for Plaintiff and Defendant Appeals. CLASSIFICATION OF QUESTIONS DISCUSSED. 1. Parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a written contract unless there is allegation of fraud or mistake. Wright v. 'S. R. R. Co., 16 B. M., 6; Brothers v. Proctor, 6 B. M., 109; Hibbard v. Smith, 17 B. M., 54; Spurrier v. Parker, 16 B. M., 284; Oastleman v. 'Southern Mutual Life Ins. Co., 14 Bush, 197; Vansant v. Runyon, 19 Ky. Law Rep., 1981;…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion op the court by
CHIEF JUSTICE BURNAM
Affirming.
Oh the - of July, 1881, Peter G. Barlow and Lucinda Comstock executed the following antenuptial contract with each other.
“Whereas marriage is about to take place between Peter G. Barlow and Mrs. Lucinda Comstock, all of Washington county, State of Kentucky: This marriage contract between the parties whose names are hereunto subscribed, witnesseth: The said Peter G. Barlow agrees to give to said Mrs. Com-stock five hundred dollars to be paid at his death, and to the *575payment of the same hereby binds himself, his administrators, executors,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Rudrick v. ThullOhio Court of Appeals · 1931