Keller v. Webb

• Decision Date: 19 July 1878
• Citation: 125 Mass. 88
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: John J. Keller v. Robert Webb & another

125 Mass. 88

John J. Keller v. Robert Webb & another

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

July 19, 1878

Suffolk.Contract for breach of an agreement to purchase certain black lead.

At the trial in the Superior Court, before Rockwell, J., the following letter from the plaintiff to the defendants was in evidence:

"When we had the pleasure of your visit a short time since, you stated that you would report on your return to Boston, in regard to the contract for about 600 casks of Crown double hammer No. 1, Amalia Mine, German black lead, for next year.According to last quotations, we could import the lead at $ 1.70 gold per 100 lbs. in shipments of 100 casks per month (probably from the 1st April next), payable cash in 30 days after arrival of each lot."

The defendants' letter of acceptance was as follows "Your esteemed favor of the 23d inst. is at hand and contents noted.We should like to make the contract for the 600 casks, Crown double hammer No. 1, Amalia Mine, German lead, at $ 1.70 gold per 100 pounds."

There was also evidence that the kind of lead in question was imported in casks weighing about 800 pounds each, unless especially ordered otherwise, and that it was imported in long and short casks of different weight.

The defendants contended that, at the time of making the contract referred to in the plaintiff's letter, the parties bargained for lump lead, 600 pounds in the casks, and proposed to ask one of the defendants, who was a witness, the following question: "At the time of making the agreement in suit, was there any stipulation by parol between you and the plaintiff as to the weight of the casks referred to in the written agreement?"

The plaintiff objected to the question, on the ground that it was sought by parol evidence to vary, control and contradict the contract in writing; and the judge excluded the question.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendants alleged exceptions.

Exceptions sustained.

J. D Thomson, for the defendants.

S. J. Thomas, for the plaintiff.

Colt J. Endicott & Lord, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Colt, J.

The intention of the parties to a contract is ascertained by applying its terms to the subject matter.Parol evidence is admissible for the purpose of removing any ambiguity which arises in so applying a written contract.The admission of parol evidence for such purpose does not violate the rule which makes the written...