Clark v. Ducheneau
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from the Second District Court, Weber County. —Hon. H. H. Bolapp, Judge. Action on a promissory note. From a judgment in favor of the defendant Cortez, the pi air tiff appealed. STATEMENT OE EACTS. This is an action on a promissory note which was executed by the defendants to the plaintiff. The comr plaint is in the ordinary form of one on a note, and demands judgment for $2,500 principal, and for interest and attorney’s fee. The defendant Ducheneau filed no answer.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Second District Court, Weber County. —Hon. H. H. Bolapp, Judge. Action on a promissory note. From a judgment in favor of the defendant Cortez, the pi air tiff appealed. STATEMENT OE EACTS. This is an action on a promissory note which was executed by the defendants to the plaintiff. The comr plaint is in the ordinary form of one on a note, and demands judgment for $2,500 principal, and for interest and attorney’s fee. The defendant Ducheneau filed no answer. Defendant Cortez filed a separate answer, and, admitting the execution of the note, averred that it was executed and…
1Opinion of the CourtBartch, J.
The main question presented in this case is whether 1 it was competent for the defendant to introduce evidence in support of the verbal contract, set up in his answer, showing a conditional delivery and satisfaction of the note, its execution being admitted.
The appellant insists that the testimony respecting the parol agreement alleged to have been made previous to and at the time of the execution and delivery of the note was erroneously admitted, because, as is urged, all such agreements and understandings were merged in the written contract, whose terms could not be varied or contradicted…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Peugh v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Benton v. . MartinNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Moore v. . CrossNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- McFarland v. SikesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1886
- Howard v. StrattonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Scott v. PrescottMontana Supreme Court · 1924
- McCaull-Dinsmore Co. v. StevensMontana Supreme Court · 1921
- First National Bank v. BurneyNebraska Supreme Court · 1912
- State Bank of Beaver County v. HollingsheadUtah Supreme Court · 1933
- Dimmick v. Utah Fuel Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1917
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.