Morris v. Morris

• Decision Date: 01 January 1810
• Citation: 5 Ky. 311
• Parties: Morris <I>vs.</I> Morris.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

5 Ky. 311

Morrisvs.

Morris.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Spring Term, 1811.

Opinion of the Court by Chief Justice BOYLE. Judge CLARK absent.

RICHARD Morris in his lifetime conveyed by deed to his son, Maurice Morris, his estate, real and personal. The conveyance purports to be made for the sole use and benefit of Maurice Morris, and for and in consideration that he had for some time past supported and maintained Richard, and had on the same day given his bond to Richard to maintain and support him during his natural life. After the death of Richard Morris, the appellees, who were the children of John Morris, deceased, and grand children of Richard, exhibited their bill against Maurice Morris, asserting their right to a moiety of the estate so conveyed under an agreement which they allege Maurice had entered into with Richard at the same time he received the conveyance, to execute a bond and deliver it to Thomas M'Clannahan, sen. conditioned for the conveyance of one half of the estate to them, who were at that time all infants.

Maurice Morris in his answer admits that Richard Morris conveyed to him his estate, but asserts that it was upon no other consideration, and for no other use or purpose, than those which are expressed in the deed; and he positively denies that he ever agreed to execute a bond to convey any part of the estate to the appellees.

The evidence in support of the appellees' claim, consists of the declarations and confessions of Maurice Morris. Such evidence, in cases where it is admissible, is of the most unsatisfactory kind on account of the facility with which it may be fabricated, and the difficulty of disproving it when false. But in this case it is inadmissible; parol evidence is sometimes admitted to explain, but never to contradict or substantially vary the terms of a written agreement. If indeed, any thing not comporting with the intention of the parties has been omitted, (a) or inserted through fraud or mistake, parol

(a) Vide Garten & ux. vs. Chandler, ante 246.

and extrinsic evidence is admissible for the purpose of making the correction and affording relief; but in such case it is an indispensable requisite, that the fraud or mistake should be charged. In this case there is no allegation, charging that either through fraud or mistake, the terms of the deed of conveyance were variant from what the parties intended. The deed therefore must be presumed to express truly the intention of the parties, and parol evidence...