Murray v. . Davis
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Aotioh of assumpsit, tried before Shepherd, J., at the last Spring Term of Beaufort Superior Court. The plaintiff's declared on a parol warranty of the soundness of a schooner called the “ Caroline,” on a sale of her to them by the defendants.
Read the full summary
Aotioh of assumpsit, tried before Shepherd, J., at the last Spring Term of Beaufort Superior Court. The plaintiff's declared on a parol warranty of the soundness of a schooner called the “ Caroline,” on a sale of her to them by the defendants. Three of the plaintiffs went on board of the vessel, and made some propositions to two of the defendants, then in possession of her, in the course of which negotiations, a witness said he heard the two defendants present, say the vessel was good. The three plaintiffs above mentioned, did not make known, then, or at any time, as far as appeared, that…
1Opinion of the Court
Pearson, O. J.
The general rule is, parol evidence is inadmissible to add to, alter, or explain a written instrument. But it is not necessary for us to decide whether this case comes within the application of the rule according to Smith v. Williams, 1 Car. L. Repos. 363, and Pender v. Fobes, 1 Dev. and Bat. 250, or forms an exception under the doctrine of Twidy v. Sanderson, 9 Ired. Rep. 5; Manning v. Jones, Bus. Rep. 368, because his Honor, in the Court below, decided the point in favor of the plaintiff, who is the appellant.
Upon the other question, we concur with his Honor. The allegation of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Alexander v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
- Wall v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Wall-Huske Co. v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Alexander v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907