Webster v. Smith
| Decision Date | 31 August 1899 |
| Parties | WEBSTER v. SMITH. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Washington county court; Tyler, Judge.
Action by George M. Webster against Edward T. Smith cm a note. Prom a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff excepts. Affirmed. On petition for a new trial. Granted.
On trial the plaintiff produced the note sued on, which bore the name of one Allen Perry as witness, and introduced evidence tending to show that the note was witnessed according to the statute when it was executed and delivered. The defendant, against objection, was permitted to testify that the note was not a witnessed note when it was delivered, and the admissibility of this evidence was the sole question raised by the exceptions.
Argued before ROSS, C. J., and MUNSON, START, and THOMPSON, JJ.
J. P. Lamson, for plaintiff.
S. G. Shurtleff, for defendant.
It was not error to permit the defendant to testify that the note in suit was not a witnessed note when delivered. The rule which prohibits the introduction of parol evidence to vary a written instrument has no application when the legal existence or binding force of the instrument is in question. This evidence was not offered to vary the defendant's writing, but to show that the note as presented was not his writing. Judgment affirmed.
On Petition for a New Trial. The note in suit purports to have been witnessed by Allen Perry. Defendant told plaintiff's counsel before the trial that Perry's name was not in his handwriting, and the case was prepared upon the theory that the defense would accord with this state ment. On trial, to the plaintiff's surprise, the defendant testified that Perry's signature was genuine, but that Perry's wife was the only one present when the note was executed, and that the subsequent affixing of Perry's name was without authority. The plaintiff thereupon moved for a continuance to enable him to procure the attendance of Mrs. Perry, which motion was overruled. Neither the plaintiff nor his counsel knew that Mrs. Perry was present at the execution of the note until the defendant so testified. The plaintiff now produces in support of his petition the testimony of Mrs. Perry that her husband was present when the note was executed, and affixed his name as a witness in defendant's presence. This presents a case which entitles the plaintiff to a new trial. New trial granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias v. Dalzell
... ... Sec. 1967, R. S. 1909; ... Lee v. Conran, 213 Mo. 404; Thompson v ... Stillwell, 253 Mo. 89; Kansas City v. Smith, ... 238 Mo. 323; Taylor v. Brown, 92 Ohio St. 287. (2) ... The court erred in refusing to permit appellant to introduce ... evidence showing ... 413; O'Leary v. McDonough, 23 ... N.Y.S. 665; Gregg v. Groesheck, 11 Utah 310; ... Cameron v. Estabrooks, 73 Vt. 73; Webster v ... Smith, 72 Vt. 12; Atwood v. Gillett & Denoyers, ... 2 Doug. 206; Chic. Bldg. & Mfg. Co. v. Butler, 139 ... Ga. 816; Brennecke Bros ... ...
-
Vaillancourt v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Can.
...the alleged fraud goes to the legal existence of the instrument in question, evidence, parol and otherwise, is admissible. Webster v. Smith, 72 Vt. 12, 47 Atl. 101; Cameron v. Estabrooks, 73 Vt. 73, 50 Atl. 638; Hartshorn v. Day, 19 How. 211, 15 L. Ed. 605; George v. Tate, 102 U. S. 564, 26......
-
the Kinnear & Gager Manufacturing Company v. Charles Miner
...purpose. " I find the rule for which I stand nowhere more tersely stated than by Mr. Justice Munson, himself, when he says in Webster v. Smith, 72 Vt. 12, 47 A. 101, that "the rule which prohibits the introduction of evidence to vary a written instrument has no application when the legal ex......
-
In re Abel G. Bugbee's Will
... ... It went to ... the binding force of the receipt and so did not infringe the ... parol evidence rule. Webster v. Smith, 72 ... Vt. 12, 47 A. 101; Cameron v. Estabrooks, ... 73 Vt. 73, 50 A. 638 ... The ... ultimate question is, did the ... ...