Bradley v. Anderson
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of assumpsit upon a promissory note dated April 23, 1828, for the sum of fifty-five dollars payable in cattlo or grain, two years after date, with interest — ■ Plea, General issue. — Upon the trial of this issue, the defendant contended that a mistake had been made or fraud practised upon him by the plaintiff, in writing the note, which was admitted to have been written by the plaintiff,, and that the contract as agreed upon by the parties at the-time of…
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit upon a promissory note dated April 23, 1828, for the sum of fifty-five dollars payable in cattlo or grain, two years after date, with interest — ■ Plea, General issue. — Upon the trial of this issue, the defendant contended that a mistake had been made or fraud practised upon him by the plaintiff, in writing the note, which was admitted to have been written by the plaintiff,, and that the contract as agreed upon by the parties at the-time of the execution of the note in question was, that the note was to be made payable in two years from its date in his, the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court was pronounced by
Baylies, J.
Parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict, vary, or explain a written contract, or to show it different from, what it purports to be on the face of it, for reasons assigned by Lord Coke, who- says, “ it would be inconvenient, that matters in writing made by advice, and on consideration, and which finally import the certain truth of the agreement of the parties, should be controlled by an averment of parties to be proved by the uncertain *153testimony of slipper| memory; and it would be dangerous to purchasers, andall others in such cases, if…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Searcy v. BrandonTennessee Supreme Court · 1934
- Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance v. MarshallSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
- Mix v. WhiteSupreme Court of Vermont · 1880