M'Meen v. Owen
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Depending on the same principles. The latter was an action of covenant brought for non payment of a sum of money due on the sale of a tract of land during the late war. The agreement did not specify in what kind of money the consideration was to be paid, but the bonds taken in pursuance thereof called it lawful money of Pennsylvania.
Read the full summary
Depending on the same principles. The latter was an action of covenant brought for non payment of a sum of money due on the sale of a tract of land during the late war. The agreement did not specify in what kind of money the consideration was to be paid, but the bonds taken in pursuance thereof called it lawful money of Pennsylvania. On the one side it was contended, that by the original agreement at and immediately before the drawing of the articles, it was stipulated, that the payments should be made in whatever money was current at the time the several instalments became due; on the other,…
1Opinion of the Court
M’Kean C. J.
The general rule of law certainly is, that a deed, will, or other written instrument, must be expounded by its own words. But there are exceptions to this rule in the books, as where parol evidence is brought to ascertain a person or thing, or to rebut an equity, or where a matter has been omitted to be inserted in the writing, either by fraud or through mistake. We will not venture to enumerate all the *4 891 cases> * wherein to do essential and substantial justice, -* the court may find themselves constrained to receive such unwritten testimony. In the case of Hurst’s lessee v.…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Lessee of Thomson v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1789
- Heagy v. UmbergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823
- Manhattan Insurance v. WebsterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
- Biello v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Biello v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973