Etheridge v. Palin
| Decision Date | 31 January 1875 |
| Citation | 72 N.C. 213 |
| Parties | JOS. W. ETHERIDGE and another v. WILLIAM PALIN and wife and others. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parol testimony is inadmissible to add to, or alter a written contract.
This was a CIVIL ACTION, for the recovery of damages, asising from alleged misrepresentations in the sale of a fishery, &c., tried before Albertson, J., at the August Term, 1874, of PERQUIMANS Superior Court, into which it had been removed from the Superior Court of Dare county.
In their complaint the plaintiffs alleged false representations or deceit, on the part of the defendants in a sale of certain fishing materials, fully described in the written contract of sale, set out in the pleadings.
On the trial, the plaintiffs ordered the following parol evidence of the contract between the parties. This evidence was objected to by the defendants on the ground, that the contract was in writing, and could not be varied or added to by parol testimony. His Honor overruled the objection, and admitted the evidence.
On the 27th July, 1872, on Roanoke island, Wm. Palin, the defendant, offered to sell to the plaintiffs the fishing beach and appliances belonging to the same, which were owned by himself and the other defendants, from whom he had authority to sell, consisting of boats, windlasses, a seine, ropes, corks, &c., at the price of $5000. At the time the plaintiffs expressed a willingness to purchase, at a fair price, but that they were entirely ignorant of the quantity and quality of the materials belonging to the fishery--some ten miles distant; and that their purchase would depend upon the outlay necessary to be made, to enable them to fish the beach the ensuing Spring, exclusive of the purchase money. That the defendant, Wm. Palin, represented that the seine, rope and corks were packed away in good order in a small room on the beach at the close of the last season; that he had personally superintended the fishing the preceding Spring; that the capstans were in good order; that a half day's work of one carpenter would put the boats in order; and that the addition of 300 yards of new seine and two coils of new rope, would be all that was necessary to fish the beach with a seine of the usual length, say 1600 yards, or thereabouts.
To this the plaintiffs replied, that if they purchased, it would be done entirely upon the representation of defendant; whereupon, he said that he would guarantee the materials and appliances to be as he had described them. The payments were then agreed upon, and it was understood that the defendants were to close the trade by finally excepting or rejecting the offer of the plaintiffs on the Monday following.
On that day the same defendant, Wm. Palin, notified the plaintiffs that he accepted the price upon the terms previously agreed upon. That he, the defendant, afterwards, procured one Griffin to draw up the contract (as set out in the complaint of the plaintiffs,) and presented the same to the plaintiffs, who read and accepted it; upon which, the cash payment was made and the notes for the balance of the purchase money, given. That before this written contract was accepted, the plaintiff Brinkley declined to do so, or to comply with its terms, until the plaintiffs could personally examine the quantity of the materials they were purchasing, whereupon the defendant stated, that they were put away in a small house; that a personal examination was wholly impracticable, and that he would not take the trouble to show them, unless a sale was agreed upon; but that he would guarantee that the materials, &c., were in the condition and of the quality and quantity previously represented by him. That upon the faith of these representations alone, the payments were made and the security given.
Evidence was also offered by the plaintiffs, which was objected to by the defendants, but admitted by the Court, that an examination of the seine and rope at that time would not determine their quality and value, because being dry, it could not be determined 'till put into use,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. Chadwick
...the rule which prohibits the introduction of parol testimony to vary, modify, or contradict the terms of a written instrument. Etheridge v. Palin, 72 N.C. 213. The rule is, that 'parol evidence will not be heard contradict, add to, take from or in any way vary the terms of a contract put in......
-
Basnight v. Southern Jobbing Co
...way of affirmative defense in the same action. It cannot be changed by a collateral attack in a suit upon the instrument itself. Etheridge v. Palin, 72 N. C. 213; Ray v. Blackwell, 94 N. C. 10; Terry v. Railroad, 91 N. C. 236; Moffitt v. Maness, 102 N. C. 457, 9 S. E. 399; Bank v. Moore, 13......
-
Basnight v. Southern Jobbing Co.
...way of affirmative defense in the same action. It cannot be changed by a collateral attack in a suit upon the instrument itself. Etheridge v. Palin, 72 N.C. 213; Ray v. Blackwell, 94 N.C. 10; Terry Railroad, 91 N.C. 236; Moffitt v. Maness, 102 N.C. 457, 9 S.E. 399; Bank v. Moore, 138 N.C. 5......
-
Western Carolina Lumber Co. v. Sturgill
...to writing, are presumed to have inserted in it all the provisions by which they intend to be bound. 1 Greenleaf Ev. § 76; Etheridge v. Palin, 72 N.C. 213." Exum v. Lynch, 188 N.C. 395, 125 S.E. 15; Overall Co. v. Hollister Co., 186 N.C. 208, 119 S.E. 1. The distinction between fraud in the......