Mcninch v. Nw. Thresher Co.
Decision Date | 09 March 1909 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 2175 OK Ter |
Citation | 23 Okla. 386,1909 OK 60,100 P. 524 |
Parties | MCNINCH v. NORTHWEST THRESHER CO. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. EVIDENCE--Parol Evidence Affecting Writings--Merger of Prior or Contemporaneous Negotiations. The execution of a contract in writing supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its terms and subject-matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument, in the absence of accident, fraud, or mistake of fact; and any representation made prior to or contemporaneous with the execution of the written contract is inadmissible to contradict, change, or add to the terms plainly incorporated into and made a part of the written contract.
2. EVIDENCE--Parol Evidence Affecting Writings--Notes--Consideration. Where by the terms of a written contract it is specifically stated that it is executed and delivered for and in consideration of the credit granted by one of the parties to a third person on the purchase price of certain machinery bought of said party by said third person, such provision in relation to the consideration binds the parties within the rules applicable to written contracts and can no more be altered or varied by oral evidence than any other part of the contract, in the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake.
3. CONTRACTS--Validity--Fraud. If a party is induced to sign a contract by fraud, he can, of course, avoid it for that reason. It is, however, clear that merely falsely representing to a man in possession of his faculties and able to read that a writing embodies their verbal understanding is not the fraud the law means.
4. PLEADING--Motions to Strike Pleading--Insufficient Allegations. Where a motion to make an answer more definite and certain is sustained, and the amended answer measurably complies with the order of the court by making the answer more definite and certain in the particulars thereby required, it is error to sustain a motion to strike such amended answer from the files, although it may not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.
James L. Brown and Gustave A. Erixon, for plaintiff in error.
M. D. Libby, for defendant in error.--The execution of a contract in writing supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its terms and subject matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument, in the absence of accident, fraud, or mistake of fact; and any representations made prior to or contemporaneous with the execution of the written contract, are inadmissible to contradict, change, or add to the terms plainly incorporated into and made a part of the written contract: Liverpool. London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Richardson Lumber Co., 11 Okla. 585; Guthrie & W. R. Co. v. Rhodes, 19 Okla. 21; Garrison v. Kress et al., 19 Okla. 433; Mower Harwood Creamery & Dairy Co. (Iowa) 113 N.W. 466; Farlow v. Chambers (S.D.) 110 N.W. 94; Jackson v. C., etc., R. Co., 54 Mo. App. 636; Pierce v. Brownenberg's Estate (Ind.) 79 N.E. 419.
Error from District Court, Canadian County; C. F. Irwin, Judge.
Action by the Northwest Thresher Company against W. R. McNinch. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
James L. Brown and Gustave A. Erixon, for plaintiff in error.
M. D. Libby, for defendant in error
¶1 This was an action commenced by the defendant in error, plaintiff below, against the plaintiff in error, defendant below, upon a certain written instrument of which the following is a copy:
¶2 The defendant by his answer admitted the execution of the instrument and sought to justify nonpayment and nonliability by allegations of affirmative matter separated into two paragraphs or defenses. To the first defense a general demurrer was interposed, and to the second a motion to make more definite and certain. Both the demurrer and motion were sustained, and the defendant took leave to amend. The amended answer admitted the execution of the instrument and amplified to some extent the defense as previously stated. A general demurrer was sustained to the first defense, and the plaintiff moved the court to strike the second from the files for failure to comply with the order to make more definite and certain, which was also sustained. The defendant elected to stand upon his pleadings as amended, and thereupon judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant seeks to review these rulings of the court below by petition in error.
¶3 The first defense set up in the amended answer was based upon two theories: (1) A failure of consideration other than that stipulated in the writing; and (2) that by fraud and mistake of fact the written agreement stipulates for a particular consideration which was not the true consideration and that the true consideration failed. This defense was stated in words and figures as follows:
¶4 We think the demurrer to this paragraph of the answer was properly sustained. The execution of a contract in writing supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its terms and subject-matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument, in the absence of accident, fraud, or mistake of facts; and any representation made prior to or contemporaneous with the execution of the written contract is inadmissible to contradict, change, or add to the terms plainly incorporated into and made a part of the written contract. Liverpool, London & Globe Insurance Company v. T. M. Richardson Lumber Company, 11 Okla. 579, 69 P. 936; Guthrie & W. R. Co. v. Rhodes, 19 Okla. 21, 91 P. 1119;...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Southard v. Ark. Valley & W. Ry. Co.
-
Seal Oil Co. v. Roberson
...the plaintiff is a woman of fair education and can read. Guthrie & W. R. Co. v. Rhodes, 19 Okla. 21, 91 P. 1119; McNinch v. Northwest Thresher Co., 23 Okla. 386, 100 P. 524; Colonial Jewelry Co. v. Bridges, 43 Okla. 813, 144 P. 577; White Sewing Machine Co. v. McCarty Furniture Co. 58 Okla.......
-
Miller v. Troy Laundry Mach. Co.
...McCain v. J. B. Colt Co., 139 Okla. 178, 281 P. 769; dictum to that effect in the third syllabus of McNinch v. Northwest Thresher Co., 23 Okla. 386, 100 P. 524, 138 Am. St. Rep. 803; and any other decisions contrary hereto on this point in fraud cases, though not listed herein. ¶13 We deem ......
-
Geo. O. Richardson Mach. Co. v. Duncan
...are in point, instead of supporting his contention, directly and squarely oppose it. He relies upon McNinch v. Northwest Thresher Co., 23 Okla. 386, 100 P. 524, 138 Am. St. Rep. 803, and Guthrie & Western Ry. Co. v. Rhodes, 19 Okla. 21, 91 P. 1119, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 490. But there is a cl......