Hill v. Gaw
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia. Jan. 26, 27. Assumpsit on a check drawn by plaintiff in the following words: “Mechanic’s Bank, Philadelphia, Jan. 10, 1845. Pay to J. G. or bearer, six hundred twenty-five dollars. .$625. ' Joseph Hill.”
Read the full summary
In error from the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia. Jan. 26, 27. Assumpsit on a check drawn by plaintiff in the following words: “Mechanic’s Bank, Philadelphia, Jan. 10, 1845. Pay to J. G. or bearer, six hundred twenty-five dollars. .$625. ' Joseph Hill.” The defendant filed an affidavit of defence as follows : The plaintiff and defendant for several years past have been in the habit of lending money to each other, .they have had dealings also in merchandise, and each has loaned his paper to the other for his accommodation. The result of these transactions was .that a…
1Opinion of the CourtRogers, J.
We are of opinion the plaintiff is entitled to judgment on the first point. It has been repeatedly ruled, that oral testimony is not admissible to contradict, vary, or materially affect, by way of explanation, any written contract. There are some exceptions to the rule, founded in mistake, or fraud, but they never have been extended so far as to admit evidence of a distinct, independent, parol agreement, which varies, alters, or contradicts the written contract, whether by bond, promissory note, bill of exchange, or by a check, which is in the nature of a bill of exchange. This point was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fleming v. GilbertNew York Supreme Court · 1808
3Cited by6 opinions
- Bushnell v. ElkinsWyoming Supreme Court · 1926
- Fuller v. LawSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Wolf v. RosenbachSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Earle v. EnosU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1904
- Gandy v. WeckerlySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.