Fitzpatrick v. Moore
| Decision Date | 01 March 1890 |
| Citation | 16 S.W. 7,53 Ark. 4 |
| Parties | FITZPATRICK v. MOORE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
APPEAL from Phillips Circuit Court in Chancery, M. T. SANDERS, Judge.
A contract in writing recited the consideration of five dollars cash in hand paid and "other good and valuable consideration." The court admitted oral evidence to show the nature of the consideration. To this action exception was taken.
Judgment affirmed.
J. C. Tappan, J. J. Hornor and Compton & Compton for appellant.
U. M. & G. B. Rose for appellee.
The consideration of the contract is not set forth in the written evidence of it, and the proof to show what the consideration was does not vary the terms of the writing. The court's finding of facts is sustained by the evidence, and the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matlock v. Bledsoe
...77 Mo. 38. And where the consideration is not set forth in the written evidence of it, parol testimony is admissible to show what it was. 53 Ark. 4; 55 Ark. 112; 27 Ark. 328; 7 L. R. A. 217. The policy at time of assignment was exempt to him, and could not have passed to his creditors under......
-
Lawrence County Bank v. Arndt
...Rep. 291. Original want of consideration follows new note given in substitution. 15 Ark. 465. Want of consideration may be shown by parol. 53 Ark. 4; 26 Ark. 449; 66 Ark. 521. Appellant was estopped representations of its officers and agents made at the time of execution of note. 65 Ark. 51......
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Furlow
...conflicted with it nor tended to vary or change its terms. The evidence was competent, and its exclusion was prejudicial. 62 Ark. 330; 53 Ark. 4; 81 374; 83 Ark. 163; 63 Ark. 475. 2. Instruction No. 5 given at appellant's request was a correct declaration of the law; and in the face of that......
-
J. H. Magill Lumber Co. v. Lane-White Lumber Co.
... ... contradict the terms of the writing. Vaugine v ... Taylor, 18 Ark. 65; Fitzpatrick v ... Moore, 53 Ark. 4, 16 S.W. 7; Kelly v ... Carter, 55 Ark. 112, 17 S.W. 706; Busch v ... Hart, 62 Ark. 330, 35 S.W. 534; St. Louis & N ... ...