Red Snapper Sauce Co. v. Bolling

• Decision Date: 21 June 1909
• Docket Number: 13,997
• Citation: 50 So. 401,95 Miss. 752
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: RED SNAPPER SAUCE COMPANY v. ROBERT A. BOLLING

50 So. 401

95 Miss. 752

RED SNAPPER SAUCE COMPANY v. ROBERT A. BOLLING

No. 13,997

Supreme Court of Mississippi

June 21, 1909

FROM the circuit court of Wilkinson county, HON. MOYSE H WILKINSON, Judge.

Bolling appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; the Red Snapper Sauce Company, appellant, was defendant there. From a judgment in plaintiff's favor the defendant appealed to the supreme court.

In November, 1907, the defendant contracted with plaintiff to purchase produce to be grown on the latter's farm during that year. The contract, was in writing and signed by both parties. In January, 1908, plaintiff brought this suit claiming damages for the alleged violation of the written contract. On the trial of the case plaintiff offered testimony of oral agreements, which he claimed were made with him by the defendant prior to the execution of the contract. This testimony was in contradiction of the terms of the written contract, and the court excluded it from the jury. The testimony failed to show any violation of the written contract on the part of the defendant, but the court allowed the case to go to the jury, and a verdict in favor of the plaintiff was returned which the court below refused to vacate. Other facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Reversed and remanded.

Bramlette & Tucker, for appellant.

Shannon & Jones and E. G. Shannon, for appellee.

OPINION

MAYES, J.

The court properly excluded from the consideration of the jury all but the written contract sued on. The appellee undertakes to show a contract partly in writing and partly verbal entered into contemporaneously. This violates the parol evidence rule. Thus Bolling states in his direct examination that he claims that there was no written contract, because it was not delivered or signed, but that there was a verbal contract, agreeing that he should not be required to carry out the contract as written, and that he would not have attempted so to do. Yet in the declaration filed the cause of action is predicated of the written contract, supplementing its agreement by certain oral agreements, which the testimony shows were entered into contemporaneously with the written contract. Thus on the cross- examination of Bolling, he states: "Q. You say there was no contract? A. I sad we did have a contract. Q. Didn't you say that the contract was never delivered? A. Yes, sir; it was delivered. Q. Didn't you say a while ago that it...