United States Rubber Co. v. Kimsey
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.
The cause was tried to the court and a jury and a verdict was rendered in favor of the defendant Leek, whom we will hereafter term the defendant. Upon the trial counsel for plaintiff objected to testimony on the part of the defendant for the reason that the parol evidence rule applies to a promissory note and prohibits proof of oral agreements to the effect that the note is to be payable at a different time or the maker’s liability is limited in any way not shown on the face of the note, and assigns that the court erred in permitting oral testimony to be introduced for the purpose of proving…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Wilson v. WilsonOregon Supreme Court · 1894
- Portland National Bank v. ScottOregon Supreme Court · 1891
- Farmers' State Bank v. ForsstromOregon Supreme Court · 1918
- Rudolph Wurlitzer Co. v. RossmannMissouri Court of Appeals · 1916
- Beach v. NevinsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1908
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- James R. Yost v. Alberta G. MorrowCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959
- Dant & Russell, Inc. v. OstlindOregon Supreme Court · 1934
- Johnson v. CurlOregon Supreme Court · 1934