Babcock v. D. Deford & Co.
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Franklin District Court. ' The action below was commenced by Babcock, as plaintiff, before a justice of the peace.
Read the full summary
Error from Franklin District Court. ' The action below was commenced by Babcock, as plaintiff, before a justice of the peace. It was removed by appeal to the district court, where it was tried at the March Term 1874. Finding and judgment in favor of Deford & Co., defendants, and plaintiff brings the case here on error. contended that, as the action is based upon a contract in writing, parol testimony is not admissible to contradict, add to, subtract from, or in any way vary its terms — citing 1 Greenl. Ev., §275; 2 Phil. Ev., p. 636; Drake v. Dodsworih, 4 Kas., 159; 30 N. Y., 474; 15 Wis.,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Brewer, J.:
Plaintiff in error claims that the district court erred in permitting parol testimony to vary the terms *410of a written contract. The facts are these: On the 3d of February 1873 the defendants signed and handed to the agent of the plaintiff the following order:
“Leland A. Babcock, M. D., Freeport, Illinois:
“Dear Sir: Please send us six of your pure solid silver uterine supporters as follows, to-wit: * * * at ten dollars each, on six months time, with printed matter. "Very truly yours, D. Deford & Co.
“Ottawa, Kansas, February 3d, 1873.”
1. parol…
2Cited by29 opinions
- McNamara v. CulverSupreme Court of Kansas · 1879
- Aultman Thrashing & Engine Co. v. KnollSupreme Court of Kansas · 1905
- Sutton v. WeberSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- Weeks v. MedlerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1878
- Thisler v. MackeySupreme Court of Kansas · 1902
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.