Potter v. Easton
| Decision Date | 15 January 1901 |
| Citation | 82 Minn. 247,84 N.W. 1011 |
| Parties | POTTER v. EASTON et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Olmsted county; Arthur H. Snow, Judge.
Action by William E. Potter against J. Hamlet B. Easton and others. Verdict for plaintiff for $150 only, and he appeals. Affirmed.
1. Where a writing is incomplete, and it appears upon its face that the parties did not intend it to be a complete statement of the whole contract between them, parol evidence is competent to prove the existence of any separate agreement as to any matter on which the writing is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms.
2. In determining whether or not a particular writing is an incomplete contract, within this rule, the controlling question is whether it appears upon the face of the instrument that the parties intended it to be the exclusive evidence of their agreement. It is not necessary, however, that the incompleteness of the writing should appear upon its face from a mere inspection of it; for it is to be construed in the light of its subject-matter, and the circumstances under which and the purpose for which it was executed. Wheaton Roller-Mill Co. v. Noye Mfg. Co., 68 N. W. 854, 66 Minn. 156, followed.
3. Rules applied, and held that the trial court did not err in this case in admitting evidence of a parol warranty of the soundness of a horse, although the defendants had given a writing to the effect that they had purchased the horse, and agreed to apply one-third of his earnings to the payment of the promissory notes given for his purchase price. Chas. C. Willson, for appellant.
H. A. Eckholdt, for respondents.
On February 12, 1897, the defendants executed to the plaintiff three promissory notes, for $500 each, due in one, two, and three years, respectively, with interest. There was written on the face of each note these words: ‘Secured by mortgage on 1 bay pacing stallion, known as Lebbeas I.,-2:13 1/4.’ As a part of the same transaction they executed to the plaintiff a chattel mortgage to secure the payment of the notes upon ‘1 mahogany bay stallion, known as Lebbeas I. (2:13 1/4 pacing).’ They also signed and delivered to the plaintiff a writing in these words: ‘This is to certify that we have bought the bay stallion known as Lebbeas I. (pacing 2:13 1/4), and given in payment three promissory notes, of $500 each, payment yearly, with interest at 6 per cent. per annum; and we further agree to apply one-third net of said Lebbeas I.'s earnings after September 1, 1897, to liquidate said notes.’ This is an action upon the notes, to recover an alleged balance of $1,239.20. The answer alleged that the notes were given for the purchase price of the stallion sold by plaintiff to defendants, and that the plaintiff warranted the horse to be sound, but that in fact he was unsound,-had a ring-bone and was broken in wind,-and that by reason of such breach of the warranty the defendants had sustained damages in a sum exceeding the amount due on the notes. The reply admitted that the notes were given for the purchase price of the horse, but denied that the plaintiff ‘made any warranty whatever regarding the horse called ‘Lebbeas I.” On the trial the notes, mortgage, and certificate were offered in evidence by the plaintiff. The defendants gave oral evidence tending to prove that the plaintiff warranted the horse, and that there was a breach thereof, and resulting damages. The evidence was received over the objections and exceptions of the plaintiff, which were to the effect that the contract of sale was in writing, and such oral evidence was incompetent. The plaintiff had a verdict for $150 only, and he appealed from the judgment entered upon the verdict. The correctness of the trial court's ruling upon the admissibility of the oral evidence to prove the warranty is the only question presented by the record for our decision.
The plaintiff contends that the certificate is a complete contract, purporting to state the terms of the purchase of the horse; hence evidence of an oral warranty of the soundness of the horse was incompetent. If the premises of this proposition are correct, the conclusion is necessarily so; for, if the horse was sold with an oral...
To continue reading
Request your trial