LaDam v. Squires
| Decision Date | 02 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 1001,1001 |
| Citation | 241 A.2d 58,127 Vt. 95 |
| Parties | Charles E. LaDAM v. Mildred E. SQUIRES. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Hanford G. Davis, Brandon, for plaintiff.
Harold J. Arthur, Burlington, for defendant.
Before HOLDEN, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITH and KEYSER, JJ.
The plaintiff, a widower on his 80's advertised for a housekeeper-companion. The defendant responded. At the time, the plaintiff had recently acquired a relatively new, but more or less unfurnished, house. It was to be the privilege of the housekeeper to select the remaining necessary furnishings.
But the more critical aspect of the arrangement included the proposed transfer of the house and furnishings to the defendant, on the death of the plaintiff. The findings relate, and the transcript confirms, that the agreement was the usual one that the defendant, in return, was to serve as housekeeper and companion. Agreement reached, the plaintiff executed a deed of his property to the defendant, reserving a life estate. Within a week, differences arose, and the defendant left. But the deed remains a matter of record.
The plaintiff turned to chancery for relief. His bill of complaint asked that the deed, as well as any related agreement, be rescinded, set aside and canceled, as well as including a general prayer for such further relief as may be proper. The chancellor made findings, entered a decree canceling the deed in question, and ordered a reconveyance by the defendant.
The defendant frames the problem in terms of alteration of the provisions of a written instrument by parol. The deed in question does not purport to spell out the bargain promise for which it was exchanged. It simply acknowledges the receipt of consideration in the conventional language of 'One dollar and other valuable considerations.' When there is such a recital of consideration received, it is usually taken merely as a written acknowledgment of payment. It is only where the acknowledged mutual promises have their terms spelled out in the written instrument that considerations outside the deed cannot be taken into account. 9 Wigmore, Evidence, § 2433, page 108 (3 ed. 1940).
It is stated in our cases that it is not error to admit parol testimony to show that the consideration of a conveyance is not the one expressed in the deed. Wheeler v. Campbell, 68 Vt. 98, 101, 34 A. 35. The parol evidence rule does not preclude, as between the original parties, as here, proof of failure of consideration. Citizens Sav. Bk. & Tr. Co. v. Paradis & Sons, 102 Vt. 114, 118, 146 A. 3.
It follows, as is stated in Wheeler v. Campbell, supra, that the deed need not state the actual consideration. This is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. Sherburne Corp.
...the parole evidence rule does not preclude, as between original parties, proof of failure of consideration. Ladam v. Squires, 127 Vt. 95, 97, 241 A.2d 58 (1968), citing Citizens Sav. Bk. & Tr. Co. v. Paradis & Sons, 102 Vt. 114, 118, 146 A. 3 With respect to the recovery granted the plainti......
-
New England Educational Training Service, Inc. v. Silver Street Partnership
...latitude" granted with respect to evidence offered in mortgage foreclosure case to show lack of consideration); Ladam v. Squires, 127 Vt. 95, 97, 241 A.2d 58, 59 (1968) (parol evidence rule does not preclude proof of lack of consideration as between original parties to an agreement). In add......
-
Huntley v. Dubois
...of oral testimony to determine the consideration, or the lack of it, involved in the plaintiffs' deed of the farm. Ladam v. Squires, 127 Vt. 95, 96, 241 A.2d 58; Wheeler v. Campbell, 68 Vt. 98, 101, 34 A. 35. And the court was justified in going outside the written instrument to determine t......