Anderson v. Sharp
| Decision Date | 05 June 1953 |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. SHARP et al. 31 Beeler 274, 195 Tenn. 274, 259 S.W.2d 521 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Avon N. Williams, Jr., Knoxville, for petitioner.
Winick & Morrison, Knoxville, for respondents.
This memo is responsive to a petition for certiorari presented by Sallie Anderson who was the unsuccessful plaintiff in the Circuit Court and the unsuccessful appellant in the Court of Appeals. The latter court, in affirming, concluded with this statement:
This does not fully describe the condition of the bill of exceptions, a fact to be hereinafter necessarily noticed. At this point enough appears in the bill of exceptions to permit a decision as to whether the two Courts mentioned erred in their construction of the instrument sued on in this case.
Alyne Dumas Lee is a professional singer. Following correspondence with respondents Stella Sharp and S. S. Scott she came to Knoxville to give a concert at the Shiloh Presbyterian Church for a consideration of $200. Admission was to be charged. On account of inclement weather, the admission receipts amounted to only $117 when it was time to start the performance. The agreement was that she was to be paid before she sang. She knew that Sharp represented the Usher Board of the Shiloh Presbyterian Church and that Scott represented Clinton Chapel Sunday School (Clinton Chapel A. M. E. Zion Church). These representatives were, therefore, known agents for disclosed principals.
The money being short and the time to begin the concert being overdue, the following instrument was executed:
'Article of Agreement:
Date May 26, 1949
'We the undersigned agree to pay to Alyne Dumas Lee the sum of $200.00 for Artistic services to be rendered on May 26, 1949, at The Shiloh Presbyterian Church, Knoxville, Tennessee.
'The full amount to be paid on the evening of the recital, prior to the performance, or at any suitable time before said performance of the above named artist.
'It is further understood and agreed that this programme is under the auspices of Usher Board of the Shiloh Presbyterian Church, and Clinton Chapel Sunday School (Clinton Chapel A.M.E. Zion Church.)
'Signed Stella H. Sharp
'Signed S. S. Scott
'Signed Alyne Dumas Lee.'
After the performance Alyne Dumas Lee wrote upon the instrument the following:
'Received from Mr. Scott the sum of $57.00
'by Alyne Dumas Lee S. S. Scott
'Received from Mrs. S. Sharp the sum of 60.00
'by Alyne Dumas Lee S. Sharp -------
'Total $117.00
'Balance due $83.00
'Balance due was promised if said artist, would go ahead with program due to the fact, as was explained by sponsors above, that all money would not be in until final check up with members of both churches after the program.'
The $83 balance shown to be due, as above recited, was never paid. Alyne Dumas Lee assigned the above instrument to her niece, Sallie Anderson. She has brought this lawsuit against Sharp and Scott as individuals on the theory that they individually promised upon the face of this instrument to pay this $83.
Sharp and Scott contend that they only entered into the agreement as known agents of their respective principals and the parties understood that they were not to be personally liable. Sallie Anderson replies with the assertion that the provisions of this written instrument cannot be changed by parol evidence. The Chancellor thought otherwise, and let in proof. Based on that proof he sustained the theory of the defendant Sharp and Scott and dismissed the suit. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Chancellor.
The question stated is close, and at first blush seems to come within the rules and principle stated in a recent case of Lazarov v. Klyce, Tenn.Sup., 255 S.W.2d 11, except that the instrument involved in that case was negotiable.
The point to be determined here is whether the instrument is ambiguous so as to let in parol evidence. It will be noticed that the instrument commences with the statement that 'We the undersigned agree to pay to Alyne Dumas Lee the sum of' etc. That instrument is not only signed by Sharp and Scott but likewise by Alyne Dumas Lee. Of course, Alyne Dumas Lee was not entering into an agreement with herself to pay herself $200. The fact mentioned suggests that there is something to be agreement more than the mere words just above quoted.
It will be further noted that the instrument recites that the 'Artistic services' are to be rendered at 'The Shiloh Presbyterian Church, Knoxville, Tenn'. Now if it be a fact that Sharp and Scott individually bound themselves to pay this $200 as Sallie Anderson insists the face of the petition says, then the question arises as to why this instrument added the following statement:
'It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Francis v. Francis
...216, 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); Irvin v. City of Clarksville, 767 S.W.2d 649, 653 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). 18 Anderson v. Sharp, 195 Tenn. 274, 281, 259 S.W.2d 521, 523 (1953); Scarbrough v. Scarbrough, 752 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988); Sparkle Laundry & Cleaners, Inc. v. Kelton, 595 S......
-
Patton v. Bearden
...Court concluded that parol evidence was admissible to determine the true identities of the parties. Id; see also Anderson v. Sharp, 195 Tenn. 274, 259 S.W.2d 521 (1953). Similarly, the inclusion of the "d/b/a Bearden Farms" renders the Beardens' signature capacity ambiguous. However, the ca......
-
International House of Talent, Inc. v. Alabama
...instrument. We are of the opinion that parol evidence to show the true identity of the parties was admissible. See Anderson v. Sharp, 195 Tenn. 274, 259 S.W.2d 521 (1953). In that case the Court held that parol evidence was admissible to show that several individuals had signed an agreement......
-
Bellamy v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store
...and the Court of Appeals have held that "[t]he settlement of a bill of exceptions is a high judicial function." Anderson v. Sharp, 195 Tenn. 274, 259 S.W.2d 521, 523 (1953) (quoting Rose v. Third Nat'l Bank, 27 Tenn.App. 553, 183 S.W.2d 1, 5 (1944)). The Court of Appeals has also stated tha......