Wilson v. Coleman

• Decision Date: 25 May 1888
• Parties: Wilson v. Coleman et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

6 S.E. 693

(81 Ga. 297)

Wilson

v.Coleman et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 25, 1888.

1. Evidence—Parol to Explain Written—Ambiguity.

Under Code Ga. § 3801, providing that "parol evidence is admissible to explain all ambiguities, both latent and patent, " such evidence is admissible to show that awritten memorandum for the delivery of a certain number of "C. L. R. P. oats" meant that number of car-loads of Texas rust-proof oats, although such agreement, the value of the goods being over $50, is required by Code, § 1950, to be in writing.

2. Same—Admissions.

In an action for failure to deliver Texas rust-proof oats, defendant contending that he was not to deliver any particular variety of rust-proof oats, plaintiff testified that, after purchasing the oats, he sent a clerk to defendant to get a sample of the Texas rust-proof oats he had bought, and that the clerk returned with a sample of Texas rust-proof oats. Held, that such testimony was properly admitted, although defendant explained that the clerk asked for a sample of Texas rust-proof oats, but not for a sample of the Texas rust-proof oats plaintiff had bought.

8. Appeal—Review—Harmless Error.

Where there is sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict, the same will not be reversed because of the admission of hearsay evidence.

Error from city court of Macon; Harris, Judge.

Hardeman & Davis, for plaintiff in error.

R. W. Patterson, for defendant in error.

Blandford, J. Wilson failing to deliver to Coleman & Ray the three carloads of Texas rust-proof oats which they alleged they had purchased from Wilson, and which he had agreed to deliver to them at a specified time, a recovery was had by the plaintiffs, and the defendant moved for a new trial, which was refused, and he excepted.

1. The main ground of exception relied upon is that the court erred in admitting parol testimony to show that a memorandum in writing, signed by Wilson, to the effect that he was to deliver to the plaintiffs a certain number of " C. L. R. P. oats " meant that number of car-loads of Texas rust-proof oats; it being contended by Wilson that this did not mean Texas rust-proof oats, nor any particular kind of rust-proof oats. We think this testimony was admissible. While, under the statute of frauds, an agreement of this character, in order to be binding on the promisor, must be in writing, the value of the goods sold being over $50, (Code, § 1950,) yet we think an ambiguity of this sort in the writing may be explained by parol. At common law, a patent ambiguity could not be explained by parol; but, under our...