Sweet v. Stevens
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Assumpsit upon a check drawn by the defendant on the 25th day of June, 1862, upon the High Street Bank, in Providence, requesting said bank to pay to the plaintiff, or order, on the 12th day of July, 1862, the sum of forty-five dollars, which check the bank refused to pay, of which the defendant, on the same day, had notice, &c. • , The action was commenced in the Court of Magistrates, in the City of Providence, in which court the defendant submitted to judgment, and…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a check drawn by the defendant on the 25th day of June, 1862, upon the High Street Bank, in Providence, requesting said bank to pay to the plaintiff, or order, on the 12th day of July, 1862, the sum of forty-five dollars, which check the bank refused to pay, of which the defendant, on the same day, had notice, &c. • , The action was commenced in the Court of Magistrates, in the City of Providence, in which court the defendant submitted to judgment, and appealed therefrom to the Court of Common Pleas for the county of Providence. At the trial of the case, under the general…
1Opinion of the CourtBullock, J.
The only question in this case is, whether the parol testimony, offered by the defendant in bar of the plaintiff’s action, is admissible under the rules of evidence.
No'oral declarations or agreements, made between the parties to a written contract, are admissible, to contradict or vary the terms of such contract. The law presumes the written engagement to be the contract of the parties, and to embrace all the terms and stipulations deemed material by either at the time of' its execution. And hence the whole current of authorities is, that in an' action upon a note, check, or bill of.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hall v. MarstonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1822
- Simonton v. SteeleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1840
3Cited by2 opinions
- Fram Corp. v. DavisSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1979
- Del Sesto v. TurchettaSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1957