Woodward v. McGaugh
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to Ray Circuit Court, 1. The testimony introduced by the defendant is wholly inadmissible, because it would be allowing parol testimony to vary the terms of the written agreement, or to superadd a substantive collateral agreement wholly inconsistent with the terms of the former. — 2 Slarkie, 551, 554, 555,570; Chitty on Contracts, p. 25; Lane vs. Price, 5 Mo.
Read the full summary
ERROR to Ray Circuit Court, 1. The testimony introduced by the defendant is wholly inadmissible, because it would be allowing parol testimony to vary the terms of the written agreement, or to superadd a substantive collateral agreement wholly inconsistent with the terms of the former. — 2 Slarkie, 551, 554, 555,570; Chitty on Contracts, p. 25; Lane vs. Price, 5 Mo. Rep., 101. 2. Admitting that it is competent for the defendants to prove fraud, covin, and misrepresentation of the plaintiffs, and thereby render the instrument in suit inoperative, as to one or all of the defendants, tire…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, Judge
Woodward and Thornton, administrators of W. W. Mauzey, deceased, brought an action of assumpsit against the defendants, McGaugh, Brown and Davis, upon a promissory note executed by them to plaintiffs, for $175 56¿, and payable twelve months after date. Process was served on McGaugh and Brown only. At the December term, 1840, McGaugh and Brown pleaded jointly the general issue: but afterwards, at the same term, withdrew this plea, and pleaded severally the general issue, with notice of set-off. Each of these set-offs were debts due by the intestate, — McGaugh’s amounting to one hundred and…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Tracy v. Union Iron Works Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Bunce v. BeckSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Koehring ex rel. Martin v. MuemminghoffSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Matson v. PearsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Mahon v. Harney County Nat. BankOregon Supreme Court · 1922
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.