Harmon v. Thompson
Decision Date | 24 January 1905 |
Parties | HARMON v. THOMPSON. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clark County.
"To be officially reported."
Action by H. P. Thompson against Archer Harmon and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, Harmon appeals. Affirmed.
Wm Lindsay, Morton, Webb & Wilson, and Beverly R. Jouett, for appellant.
Pendleton & Bush, J. H. Hazelrigg, and J. M. Benton, for appellee.
O'REAR J.
This suit involved the construction of the contract copied below the measure of damage for its breach, and the nature and requisites of the action upon it.
The contract is worded as follows:
The contract was made February 17, 1890. At that time, and for some time prior, there had been considerable animation at Winchester in the real estate market. A "boom," so common during that period, was being experienced. Appellee had cut a farm, or a good part of it, into town lots, and was selling them at fairly remunerative prices. Appellant and Talbutt were promoters or speculators dealing in town lots in various localities where active speculation was possible, owing to inflated prices and excited expectations. Appellee's contention in this case is that they were attracted by what appeared to be favorable opportunities afforded by his property at Winchester, and bought it for that purpose. Appellant contends, on the contrary, that he and Talbutt engaged merely to promote appellee's venture in exposing his lots to public sale. The paper is said to be ambiguous, and, because of that claim, it was sought by appellant to have his construction of its meaning aided by extraneous evidence.
It is not every contract of vague or slightly obscure meaning that calls for, or that will admit of, other evidence to aid in its interpretation. If the paper itself affords a reasonably clear understanding of what the parties have engaged themselves to, it is safer, and it is the law, that its language alone should be consulted in arriving at that meaning. It is upon that reason that such rules as that all the terms of the writing must be consulted and reconciled, if possible, are founded. For, when the parties to a contract have deliberately written down and signed a memorial of their undertaking, it is presumed, and, in the absence of fraud or mutual mistake, it is conclusively presumed, that the whole of the undertaking, and all negotiations leading up to it, are merged in the writing. The writing is the best evidence, and, so long as it can be produced, is the only evidence receivable, of what the parties have agreed to do, and of their whole meaning with reference thereto. It were better if all agreements were perfectly clear and free from controversy. But they are not. It does not at all follow from that fact, though, that all agreements not perfectly plain and having but one possible interpretation are subject to be explained in every case by extraneous and parol evidence. If such were so, the value of written contracts would be reduced to a minimum, if not nil. It is because such is not the law that the numerous rules for construing written contracts are in existence. For, most obviously, a perfectly plain, undoubted meaning needs no rule to aid in its construction. So, when the written terms seem to be in conflict with each other--where some part of the writing is apparently inconsistent with another part--it does not follow that the bars are to be let down, and parol evidence, with its train of uncertainties, admitted. Before that is allowed, the resources of the paper itself must be exhausted. That is what the law assumes the parties intended by reducing the agreement to writing, for, if it were to be left to parol testimony as to any part of its meaning, it was idle to have been to the trouble of having it written down. When, after applying to the writing those rules of interpretation found safe and just in the experience of the law, the meaning, or the probable meaning, in law, of the parties, can be fairly gathered with a certainty satisfying the judicial mind, the courts will consult the writing alone, rejecting extraneous evidence as aid in construing it. But where, after applying the rules of interpretation applicable to the writing alone, the judicial mind is still in doubt as to the meaning of the parties, and there exists a latent ambiguity, the law admits parol or other outside evidence to explain what was meant by the writing. Technical terms and trade expressions afford probably the most numerous instances of the application of the rule just stated, though there are of course, many others.
Can the intention of the parties to the agreement sued on be gathered from that writing? Subjecting the paper to analysis, it appears clearly enough that Thompson, the owner of the land described, wanted to sell it, and was by that paper undertaking to sell it. The price at which he was willing to sell two-thirds of it is fixed at $600 per acre. Appellant and Talbutt appear in the paper as both buyers and sellers. They were not selling to Thompson. They had to buy from him before they could sell to anybody, unless they were authorized by Thompson to sell for him. To buy from him, the terms upon which they were to get the land must be agreed on. So it was stated that Thompson was to receive $600 per acre for what he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clark v. Isaacs
... ... for a trial by jury of the issue must be made when the issue ... is made by the pleadings, or within a reasonable time ... thereafter. Harmon v. Thompson, 119 Ky. 528, 84 S.W ... 569, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 181; Lewis v. Helton, 144 Ky ... 595, 139 S.W. 772; Procter v. Tubb, 166 Ky. 676, 179 ... ...
-
Myers v. Saltry
... ... 1053; Dunekake v. Beyer, 79 S.W. 209, 25 ... Ky. Law Rep. 2002; Ashland, etc., R. Co. v. Lee, 82 ... S.W. 368, 26 Ky. Law Rep. 700; Harmon v. Thompson, ... 119 Ky. 528, 84 S.W. 569, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 186 ... Appellant ... insists that the petition was defective for ... ...
-
Westlake Vinyls, Inc. v. Goodrich Corp., 5:03CV-240-R.
...the property is an appropriate remedy for the breach. Davis v. Lacy, 121 F.Supp. 246, 251-52 (E.D.Ky.1954) (quoting Harmon v. Thompson, 119 Ky. 528, 84 S.W. 569, 572 (1905)). PolyOne contends that between 1993 and 1997, Goodrich knowingly permitted Westlake to continually contaminate the En......
-
Akins v. City of Covington
... ... written instruments, the contract can be given a consistent ... meaning as a whole, parol evidence is inadmissible to explain ... it. Harmon v. Thompson, 119 Ky. 528, 84 S.W. 569, 27 ... Ky.Law Rep. 181; Corbin v. Milward, 158 Ky. 308, 164 ... S.W. 974 ... However, ... ...