Myron v. Union R. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 June 1895
• Citation: 32 A. 165,19 R.I. 125
• Parties: MYRON v. UNION R. CO.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

32 A. 165

19 R.I. 125

MYRON

v. UNION R. CO.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 21, 1895.

Action by Joseph Myron against the Union Railroad Company. Plaintiff's demurrer to a plea setting up a release in bar of the action overruled.

J. J. Hahn, for plaintiff.

D. S. & W. C. Baker, for defendant.

MATTESON, C. J. The general rule that oral evidence will not be received to add to or vary the terms of a written contract applies to releases as well as other written instruments. If parties have put their contract into writing, the written instrument is to be regarded as the only evidence of the contract as finally concluded. Oral evidence of what was said or done during the negotiations will not be admitted either to contradict what is written or to supply terms with respect to which the writing is silent. The purpose of the rule is to enable parties to make their written contracts the only evidence of their undertakings, and to protect themselves against the hazard of uncertain oral testimony in respect to their engagements. A moment's consideration will serve to show how highly important the rule is to the security of contracting parties, if, indeed, it is not indispensable. The only exception to the rule is when the written contract is incomplete, and it is apparent from an inspection of the instrument that it does not embrace the entire contract. In such a case oral testimony may be resorted to to supplement, but not to vary or contradict, what is written. Naumberg v. Young, 44 N. J. Law, 331; Thomas v. Scutt, 127 N. Y. 133, 27 N. E. 961. The release in the case at bar does not appear on inspection to be incomplete. On the contrary, it is a formal instrument under seal, evidently designed to be a complete discharge of the defendant company from all liability to the plaintiff for the injury he had received. It begins by acknowledging the receipt of $900 from the defendant in full settlement and discharge of any debt, demand, claim, and suit, and of all debts, demands, claims, and suits, of whatever nature, which the plaintiff has against the defendant, and particularly in full settlement and discharge of any claim, demand, or suit which the plaintiff at the time of the release had against the defendant, either in law or equity, growing out of or arising from the injury or injuries sustained by the plaintiff on the day of the accident on High street, in Providence; and goes on to release and discharge the defendant from all present and future...