Lyon v. Huntingdon Bank
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. On a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hunting-don county, it appeared that this was an action of debt, brought by the Huntingdon Bank, against John Lyon and Robert T Stewart, the plaintiffs in error, who were defendants below, on a single bill for seven thousand three hundred and ten dollars, dated the 20th of January, 1818. The defendants pleaded payment, with leave to give the special matter in evidence, whereupon issue was joined.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. On a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hunting-don county, it appeared that this was an action of debt, brought by the Huntingdon Bank, against John Lyon and Robert T Stewart, the plaintiffs in error, who were defendants below, on a single bill for seven thousand three hundred and ten dollars, dated the 20th of January, 1818. The defendants pleaded payment, with leave to give the special matter in evidence, whereupon issue was joined. Notice, agreeably to the rule of the 'Court of Common Pleas, was given by the defendants to the plaintiffs, of the special matter intended…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman, C. J.,
who delivered the opinion of the court, after stating the case, proceeded as follows:—
It is very true, that- it is a rule of law, subject, however, to exceptions, that a writing is to be construed according to its own words, without resort to parol evidence; also, that where there is an agreement in writing, parol evidence of the same agreement is inadmissible. But the evidence offered in this case does not fall within that rule. It was not pretended, that there was any thing wrong in the single bill, or that any alteration whatever should be made in it. The object of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Robinson v. EldridgeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823
- Heagy v. UmbergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823
3Cited by2 opinions
- Towner v. Lucas' ex'orSupreme Court of Virginia · 1857
- Oliver ex rel. Rowland v. OliverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833