Wells v. Drane
| Decision Date | 27 October 1921 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 217 |
| Citation | 90 So. 898,206 Ala. 583 |
| Parties | WELLS et al. v. DRANE et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; A.P. Agee, Judge.
Action by R.W. Drane and another against J.G. Wells and another. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Transferred from Court of Appeals under section 6, p. 449, Acts 1911. Reversed and remanded.
Ross Blackmon and J.B. Holman, Jr., both of Anniston, for appellant.
Lapsley & Carr, of Anniston, for appellee.
Appellees sued to recover the sum of $500 due by promissory note given to secure a balance on the contract price of a poolroom business which they had sold to appellants. Appellants defended on the ground, among others, that at the time of the sale the parties had agreed that, in the event the city of Anniston should revoke the license for which appellees had paid for the current year, 1919, appellees "would make reduction of or rebate to the defendants [[appellants] the sum of five hundred dollars ($500.00) on the purchase price of said business." Demurrer to this defense (plea 4) was overruled. This ruling thereupon became the law of the case.
Appellees rested upon the introduction of the note decared upon. Appellants then introduced the witness John A. Carter, Jr. and after he had testified that as a "go-between" he had negotiated the sale in question, interrogated him as follows:
"Tell the jury whether or not the license on the business at the time by the city of Anniston was considered as a basis of value in arriving at the price of $8,000."
Appellees objected generally, and then appellants supplemented this question as follows:
"We propose to prove by him that the consideration for the $500 sued on was for the license on the pool room, and that it was agreed between the sellers and buyers that if the license were revoked or suspended for any cause that the consideration for this note would fail."
Whereupon the court sustained the objection and appellants duly excepted.
It is a fair inference from what else appears in the bill of exceptions that the court sustained this objection for the reason that the contract between the parties--the contract of sale--was in writing and not subject to variation or contradiction. But it was not made to appear that the contract was in writing, and as for the note, it was not affected by the rule that written contracts cannot be explained by parol evidence. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Regional Agr. Credit Corp. of Washington, D.C. v. Hendley
... ... consideration for the note and parol evidence is admissible ... to show the true consideration. See Wells v. Drane et ... al., 206 Ala. 583, 90 So. 898. We think, however, that ... this is a principle not here applicable. Parol evidence is ... not ... ...
-
Blount County Bank v. Robinett & McCay
...cannot be explained by parol evidence, and its consideration is a proper subject of inquiry, whether shown by parol or in writing." Wells v. Drane, supra. follows that the several rulings of the court were free from error, and the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed. ...
-
James v. Cortright
... ... L. R. 454. See, also, as to ... failure of delivery, Phillips v. Matthews, 205 Ala ... 480, 88 So. 641; and as to the consideration, Wells v ... Drane, 206 Ala. 583, 90 So. 898. The terms of an ... agent's employment, though unknown to surety, were held ... properly proved by parol ... ...
-
Jackson v. Sample
...in the company and that common stock was delivered. This, of course, went to the failure of consideration. In the case of Wells v. Drane, 206 Ala. 583, 90 So. 898, the note sued upon was given for the purchase of the to operate a pool room and the agreement that the note was not to be paid ......