Schneider Granite Co. v. J. C. Fink Mineral Milling Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. John A. Talty, Judge. Parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict, add to, subtract from, control or vary a written contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. John A. Talty, Judge. Parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict, add to, subtract from, control or vary a written contract. If the language is plain and unambiguous, -and the terms used bave no technical meaning, different from tbeir ordinary meaning, then the force and effect to be given to the contract must be determined by its terms, and oral evidence is inadmissible to give the contract a different construction from that imported by its terms. Ebehring v. Muemminghoff, 61 Mo. 403 ; Thompson v. Irwin, 42 Mo. App. 403, 419. Oral…
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
The plaintiff owns and operates a granite quarry near Graniteville, Missouri. The defendant is the owner of mills in the city of St. Louis for making crushed granite. On September 19, 1891, the plaintiff entered into a written contract with the defendant, in which it agreed to sell and ship to defendant ten thousand tons of “merchantable red granite spalls, suitable for making crushed granite,” at times and in quantities ordered, not exceeding three cars per day. The contract was to continue for four years, if ten thousand tons were not shipped sooner, and during the contract the defendant…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Baxter v. Boston & Worcester RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Almgren v. . DutilhNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
- Gray v. HarperU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1841
3Cited by1 opinion
- Riley-Wilson Grocer Co. v. Seymour Canning Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1908