James T. Hair Co. v. Walmsley
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Pettis Circuit Court.— Hon. Richard Field, Judge. The case is stated in the opinion. (1) Upon this record, the following questions arise: Was it not error to admit oral evidence to engraft •additional stipulations upon this contract ? We answer in the affirmative.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pettis Circuit Court.— Hon. Richard Field, Judge. The case is stated in the opinion. (1) Upon this record, the following questions arise: Was it not error to admit oral evidence to engraft •additional stipulations upon this contract ? We answer in the affirmative. Pearson v* Carson, 69 Mo. 550. (2) When a person enters into a written contract which is plain and complete in itself and is not deceived by fraud or otherwise as to its meaning, terms and conditions, will he be heard to say that he did not enter into that contract but a different one % We say, no. Frigs'ell v. Mayer, 13…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, P. J.
— Plaintiff sued defendant on the following contract:
“$48. Sedalia, Mo., Oct. 9, 1884.
“ James T. Hair Company is hereby requested to publish our card, to occupy eight squares, once on each blotter leaf throughout one year’s supply advertising hotel register books for five or more hotels in Sedalia, for which we promise to pay to the order of the company the sum of forty-eight dollars, one-fourth on delivery of the books to the hotels, one-fourth three months, one-fourth six months, one-fourth nine months. All stipulations are detailed with ink in this contract.
“Card — To be in red ink. Name —…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wright v. McPikeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- Pearson v. CarsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- Cole Bros. v. WiedmairMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
3Cited by3 opinions
- Van Ravenswaay v. Covenant Mutual Life InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Dearmin v. SchnellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897
- Dick Bros. Quincy Brewing Co. v. FinnellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890