Wyman v. Winslow
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
This was assumpsit on the following promissory note, viz : “ Sunkhaze, Dec. 17, 1831. Value received I promise to pay James W. Wyman, or order, the sum of seventy dollars, to be paid in lumber, delivered at Bangor in the month of June next.” — The writ also contained a count for money had and received. Plea, the general issue, accompanied by a brief statement.
Read the full summary
This was assumpsit on the following promissory note, viz : “ Sunkhaze, Dec. 17, 1831. Value received I promise to pay James W. Wyman, or order, the sum of seventy dollars, to be paid in lumber, delivered at Bangor in the month of June next.” — The writ also contained a count for money had and received. Plea, the general issue, accompanied by a brief statement. It was proved, that at the time the note was given, and afterward, it was agreed by the parties that the note should be paid at Lambert Sf Fisher's, in Bangor, though parol evidence introduced for this purpose, was objected to by…
1Opinion of the Court
Mellen C. J.
at the ensuing June term in this county, delivered the opinion of the Court.
The principal question in this cause is, whether the facts relied on by the defendant operated as a tender and are a bar to the action. We would observe in the first place, that we see no error in the ruling of the Judge as to the admission of parol evidence to shew the place of delivery of the lumber, as none is expressed in the note. Both parties are interested in the designation of a place, and there is the same reason for proving it by pa-rol in case of an agreement of the parties, as when it is…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Robbins v. LuceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Nichols v. WhitingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1792
- Newton v. GalbraithNew York Supreme Court · 1809
3Cited by3 opinions
- Gardner v. CaylorIndiana Court of Appeals · 1900
- Crowl v. GoodenbergerMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Harding v. Texoleum Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1922