Legal Opinion

Stein v. Fogarty

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided January 31, 1896PublishedCited by 9 opinions

APPEAL from District Court, Ada County. Is parol evidence of a contemporaneous oral agreement showing the conditions upon which a promissory note is given admissible P Or, in other words, can' the consideration be inquired into ? The point in the case at bar is not as to the language used in the note, but only as to the conditions on which it was given to plaintiff; in other words, the consideration may be inquired into, such consideration being concurrent parol agreements.

Read the full summary

APPEAL from District Court, Ada County. Is parol evidence of a contemporaneous oral agreement showing the conditions upon which a promissory note is given admissible P Or, in other words, can' the consideration be inquired into ? The point in the case at bar is not as to the language used in the note, but only as to the conditions on which it was given to plaintiff; in other words, the consideration may be inquired into, such consideration being concurrent parol agreements. (Schundler v. Mulheiser, 45 Conn. 153; Kennedy v. Goodman, 14 Neb. 585, 16 N. W. 834; Maliz v. Fletcher, 52 Mich. 484,…

1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.

This is an action on a promissory note. The answer admits the execution of the note, but alleges, at the time of the execution of said note, and as a contemporaneous act therewith, the plaintiff and defendant mutually agreed that said note should be paid by the defendant in work and labor as a plumber, at the usual rates, and upon a certain house in Boise City, the property of plaintiff, then being constructed by him. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment for the defendant. Thereupon plaintiff moved for a new trial, which motion was granted, and a new…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Brown v. SpoffordSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Forsythe v. KimballSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  3. Conner v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Milner v. Earl Fruit Co. of the NorthwestIdaho Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Beebe v. Pioneer Bank & Trust Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Rector v. HancockSupreme Court of Virginia · 1920
  4. Searcy v. BrandonTennessee Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Brooks v. BeachIdaho Supreme Court · 1930

4 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