Stub's Use v. Stub
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Berks county. June 19. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the use of Peter Stub, Jacob Stub, and Sarah Ansbach, plaintiffs in error and plaintiffs below, against William Stub, George Forrer, and Henry Deck, defendants in error.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Berks county. June 19. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the use of Peter Stub, Jacob Stub, and Sarah Ansbach, plaintiffs in error and plaintiffs below, against William Stub, George Forrer, and Henry Deck, defendants in error. This was an action of debt on a bond given in the Orphan’s Court by the defendants — the two last as sureties — in the sum of $7000; and was brought to recover the shares of Peter Stub, Jacob Stub, and Sarah Ansbach, in the balance of the personal property of their father, Adam Stub, deceased, remaining in the hands of William Stub, one…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnside, J.
It would seem to be well settled, that parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument. 1 Greenl. Ev. sec. 278; 1 Phil. Ev. (Am. ed.) 753; 2 Stark. 544, 548; 12 Wend. 573.
A plain written engagement, upon sufficient consideration, plainly and intelligibly staled in the language of the parties, should not be varied or rendered ineffectual. A writing may be read by the light of surrounding circumstances, in order more perfectly to understand the intent and meaning of the parties; but as they have constituted the writing to be the only…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Boorman v. JenkinsNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Hunt v. AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
- Beeson v. HutchisonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
- Collam v. HockerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1829
- Iddings v. IddingsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1821