First National Bank v. Bews
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Blaine County. Where an instrument does not express the entire agreement, and does not appear to do it, parol evidence is competent to show the omitted part, whether contemporaneous or antecedent, if it does not conflict with the instrument.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Blaine County. Where an instrument does not express the entire agreement, and does not appear to do it, parol evidence is competent to show the omitted part, whether contemporaneous or antecedent, if it does not conflict with the instrument. (Browne on Parol Evidence, see. 50, p. 125, and authorities cited; Green-leaf on Evidence, sec. 282, n. 2; Wharton on Evidence, sees. 926, 942, 944, 946, 947, 956, 961, 971; Eice on Evidence, 219, 262, 264, 275, 318, 320; Auezra-is v. Nagles-, 74 Cal. 60, 15 Pac. 371; Toomy v. Dunphy, 86 Cal. 639, 25 Pac. 130.) Where a contract…
1Opinion of the CourtHuston, J.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff against defendants upon a promissory note, a copy of which is set forth in the complaint, and is in the words and figures following:
“$5,000.00. Hailey, Idaho, 29th August, 1887.
“One day after date, without grace, for value received, we jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of McCornick & Co., five thousand dollars, negotiable and payablei at the house of McCornick & Co., Hailey, Idaho, without defalcation or discount, and interest at the rate of one and one-half per cent per month from date until paid, both before and after judgment.
(Signe…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- First National Bank v. BewsIdaho Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by5 opinions
- Milner v. Earl Fruit Co. of the NorthwestIdaho Supreme Court · 1925
- Beebe v. Pioneer Bank & Trust Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1921
- Newmyer v. RoushIdaho Supreme Court · 1912
- Gardiner v. GardinerIdaho Supreme Court · 1923
- Milner v. Earl Fruit Co. of the NorthwestIdaho Supreme Court · 1925