Harwood v. Brown
Missouri Court of Appeals
Error to Cass Circuit Court, IIon. Noah M. Hitan, ■Judge. Statement of case by the court. This was an action upon two promissory notes made by the defendants and payable to R. B. Harwood, the plaintiff’s intestate. . The petition was in two counts. The answer to both •counts was the same.
Read the full summary
Error to Cass Circuit Court, IIon. Noah M. Hitan, ■Judge. Statement of case by the court. This was an action upon two promissory notes made by the defendants and payable to R. B. Harwood, the plaintiff’s intestate. . The petition was in two counts. The answer to both •counts was the same. After admitting the execution of the note and the administratorship of the plaintiff, the .answer to the first count of the petition was as follows :■ “Defendants admit that the sum of money, with all interest thereon, as expressed to be due and owing by .said instrument, is unpaid, and that they, and each…
1Opinion of the CourtHall, J.
The well established rule is that oral testimony is inadmissible to vary or contradict the terms of a written instrument. In accordance with this rule, a note, which in its terms is an absolute and unconditional promise to pay the sum of money therein specified, cannot be varied by evidence of a prior or contemporaneous oral agreement that the note, in a certain contingency, was not to be paid. Smith's Adm'rs v. Thomas, 29 Mo. 310, 311 ; Henshaw v. Dutton, 59 Mo. 139 ; Jones v. Shaw, 67 Mo. 667 ; Ewing v. Clark, 76 Mo. 545 ; Gardner v. Matthews, 81 Mo. 627.
But it is not inconsistent with this…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Jones v. ShawSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Smith's Administrators v. ThomasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
- Henshaw v. DuttonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Ewing v. ClarkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- Gardner v. MathewsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hurt v. FordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898