Woods v. Wallace
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver county. This was an action of assumpsit by Hugh Woods v. Daniel H. Wallace, instituted on 19th July, 1850, on a promissory note, as follows: “27th June, 1846. “ Four years after date, I promise to pay to Hugh Woods the sum of Five Hundred Dollars, with four per cent, interest, it being for a lot of goods bought of him, for which he holds a mortgage on half a lot of ground, owned by my father, at Hardscrabble. “Daniel H. Wallace.”
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver county. This was an action of assumpsit by Hugh Woods v. Daniel H. Wallace, instituted on 19th July, 1850, on a promissory note, as follows: “27th June, 1846. “ Four years after date, I promise to pay to Hugh Woods the sum of Five Hundred Dollars, with four per cent, interest, it being for a lot of goods bought of him, for which he holds a mortgage on half a lot of ground, owned by my father, at Hardscrabble. “Daniel H. Wallace.” It was stated that the plaintiff, on the 27th June, 1846, sold to the defendant a lot of store goods, for which he gave…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Lewis, J.
Notwithstanding the numerous exceptions which have been recognised by the Courts, the rule is not denied that where the parties have deliberately put their engagement into writing, parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the written instrument. It is not because a seal is put to the contract that it shall not be explained away, varied, or rendered ineffectual, but because the writing itself is the best possible evidence of the meaning of the parties: 1 Gfreenl. Ev. sec. 275-6. And the rule, therefore, applies as well to simple…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Colwell v. WoodsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Kunkle v. WolfersbergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Rankin v. MortimereSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
- Colt v. SeldenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836