Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Moss

• Decision Date: 19 March 1924
• Docket Number: 254.
• Citation: 121 S.E. 738,187 N.C. 421
• Parties: TOBACCO GROWERS' CO-OP. ASS'N v. MOSS.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

121 S.E. 738

187 N.C. 421

TOBACCO GROWERS' CO-OP. ASS'N v. MOSS.

No. 254.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 19, 1924

Appeal from Superior Court, Wake County; Allen, Judge.

Action by the Tobacco Growers' Cooperative Association against W. B. Moss. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. New trial.

Though the general rule is that no verbal agreement between the parties to a written contract, made before or at its execution, is admissible to vary its terms or to contradict its provisions, it may be shown by parol evidence that delivery of a written contract was on condition that the same was not to be operative until the happening of some contingent event.

Burgess & Joyner, of Raleigh (Aaron Sapiro, Elystus L. Hayes, and Theodore E. Bowen, all of San Francisco, Cal., of counsel) for appellant.

Chas U. Harris and Jas. S. Griffin, both of Raleigh, for appellee.

STACY J.

The controversy, on trial, narrowed itself to the single question as to whether the defendant was a member of the plaintiff association; it being alleged and denied that he had executed the standard marketing agreement and thereby bound himself to deliver to the plaintiff all tobacco produced by him during the years from 1922 to 1926, both inclusive. Defendant admitted signing the agreement, but contended that this was done on condition and that the contract was not to take effect except upon a contingency which never happened.

The general rule is that no verbal agreement between the parties to a written contract, made before or at the time of the execution of such contract, is admissible to vary its terms or to contradict its provisions. Overall Co. v. Hollister Co., 186 N.C. 208, 119 S.E. 1. But it is equally well established--

"That although a written instrument purporting to be a definite contract has been signed and delivered, it may be shown by parol evidence that such delivery was on condition that the same was not to be operative as a contract until the happening of some contingent event, and this on the idea, not that a written contract could be contradicted or varied by parol, but that until the specified event occurred the instrument did not become a binding agreement between the parties." Bowser v. Tarry, 156 N.C. 38, 72 S.E 76.

See, also, Summit Ave. Building Co. v. Sanders, 185 N.C. 328, 117 S.E. 3, and cases there cited.

With respect to proving the alleged condition precedent, prior to the...