Kemmil v. Wilson
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
Action on a promissory note for ?1519, given by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant gave in evidence two recognizances entered into by one Ege to the defendant in the orphan’s court, with a special assignment. entered upon the records of that court, to the plaintiff, in August, 1S21, to be held by the said Kemmil as collateral security for the debt due by the said Wilson to him. to be collected by Kemmil. as he may think proper; and the balance due upon the…
Read the full summary
Action on a promissory note for ?1519, given by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant gave in evidence two recognizances entered into by one Ege to the defendant in the orphan’s court, with a special assignment. entered upon the records of that court, to the plaintiff, in August, 1S21, to be held by the said Kemmil as collateral security for the debt due by the said Wilson to him. to be collected by Kemmil. as he may think proper; and the balance due upon the recognizances, after discharging the said debt, to be paid by the said Kemmil to the said Wilson. The defendant's counsel…
1Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM..
The rule of law which excludes parol evidence to vary or to contradict a written agreement, is equally imperative as to explanatory evidence, where the ambiguity to be explained is patent, which it is. in this case, if there be an ambiguity at all. Parol evidence of the agreement was admitted in the ease of McCulloch v. Girard [Case No. 8,737], not to explain the written contract, but to prove what the court considered to be. from the circumstances of that ease, the only agreement between the parties; the note of Girard having been given in part execution of that agreement, as far…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Wadlington v. CovertMississippi Supreme Court · 1875
- Taylor v. CheeverMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1856