Linville v. Holden
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
STATEMENT OE THE CASE. The action was brought upon a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “ $1,131.20. Washington, March 12,1872. “ Six months after date we promise to pay to the order of George W. Linville eleven hundred and thirty-one T2^- dollars, for value received, with eight per cent, interest, at the National Bank of the Republic. “O. H. HOLDEN. “ YORK BROS. “JOHN W. SHILES.”
Read the full summary
STATEMENT OE THE CASE. The action was brought upon a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “ $1,131.20. Washington, March 12,1872. “ Six months after date we promise to pay to the order of George W. Linville eleven hundred and thirty-one T2^- dollars, for value received, with eight per cent, interest, at the National Bank of the Republic. “O. H. HOLDEN. “ YORK BROS. “JOHN W. SHILES.” On the trial of the cause, under the instructions of the court, a verdict was rendered for the defendants. The defendants, by the testimony of the defendants James M. York and John W. Shiles, offered…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Olin
The evidence admitted by the court in this case was, we .think, clearly inadmissible; because its object was directly to contradict or vary the terms of the written contract by parol evidence tending to show that the written contract sued upon was not the contract made between the parties. See 1 Green. Ev., § 275, et seq. The rule of law has been long well settled that an agreement reduced to writing, and signed by the parties, cannot be contradicted in its legal effect and meaning, where the contract is clear and explicit in its terms, by a contemporaneous oral agreement, tending to show…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Erwin v. SaundersNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Ely v. KilbornNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Brown v. HullCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
- Fitzhuch v. RunyonNew York Supreme Court · 1811