Red Snapper Sauce Co. v. Bolling
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Wilkinson county. Hon. Moyse H. Wilkinson, Judge. Bolling, appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; the Red Snapper Sauce Company, appellant, was defendant there. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor the defendant appealed to the supreme court. In November, 1907, the defendant contracted with plaintiff to parchase produce to be grown on the latter’s farm during that year. The contract was in writing and signed by both parties.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Wilkinson county. Hon. Moyse H. Wilkinson, Judge. Bolling, appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; the Red Snapper Sauce Company, appellant, was defendant there. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor the defendant appealed to the supreme court. In November, 1907, the defendant contracted with plaintiff to parchase produce to be grown on the latter’s farm during that year. The contract was in writing and signed by both parties. In January, 1908, plaintiff brought this suit, claiming damages for the alleged violation of the written contract. On the trial of the case…
1Opinion of the Court
.Mayes, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The court properly excluded from the consideration of the jury all but the written contract sued on. The appellee undertakes to show a contract partly in writing and partly verbal, entered into contemporaneously. This violates the parol evidence rule. Thus Bolling states in his direct examination that he claims that there was no written contract, because it was not delivered or signed, but that there was a verbal contract, agreeing that he should not be required to carry out the contract as written, and that he would not have attempted so to do.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Grenada Auto Co. v. WaldropMississippi Supreme Court · 1940
- Bolling v. Red Snapper Sauce Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1910