Keystone Axle Co. v. Leyda
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 195, Oct. T., 1898, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Beaver Co., March T., 1897, No. 88, on verdict for defendants. Assumpsit on a contract. Before James Sharp Wilson, P. J. At the trial it appeared that on October 24,1895, defendants executed an agreement in writing by which they bound themselves to sell certain land to the plaintiff, and subscribed the sum of $10,000 to its capital stock.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 195, Oct. T., 1898, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Beaver Co., March T., 1897, No. 88, on verdict for defendants. Assumpsit on a contract. Before James Sharp Wilson, P. J. At the trial it appeared that on October 24,1895, defendants executed an agreement in writing by which they bound themselves to sell certain land to the plaintiff, and subscribed the sum of $10,000 to its capital stock. The object of the agreement was to induce the plaintiff to build its plant in a certain borough. All of the defendants testified that they were induced to sign the agreement by…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The instructions of the court below to the jury as to the kind, of testimony necessary to alter or overthrow a written agreement were strictly correct and in accord with our decisions. The jury were told several times over that the testimony must be clear, precise and indubitable, and that “it requires a higher and greater degree of evidence than to qualify or contradict or change a parol agreement.” The defense consisted also in part of alleged fraudulent misrepresentations on the part of the persons who induced the defendants to sign the written agreement. There were five…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pyroleum Appliance Co. v. Williamsport Hardware & Stove Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
3Cited by1 opinion
- Armour v. United States Express Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913