Yeager v. Jackson
Decision Date | 07 March 1933 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 20450 |
Citation | 1933 OK 164,19 P.2d 970,162 Okla. 207 |
Parties | YEAGER v. JACKSON. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Evidence--Parol Evidence to Prove Condition Precedent to Taking Effect of Written Contract.
Parol evidence is not admissible to vary the terms of a written contract, but parol evidence may be introduced to prove a separate parol agreement constituting a condition precedent to the taking effect of the written contract.
2. Appeal and Error--Sufficiency of Conflicting Evidence to Sustain Verdict.
Where the evidence in an action at law is in conflict, if there is sufficient competent evidence to reasonably sustain the verdict rendered, this court will not disturb the verdict on appeal.
Appeal from District Court, Stephens County; M. W. Pugh, Judge.
Action by J. M. Jackson against George W. Yeager. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Sandlin & Winans, for plaintiff in error.
C. L. McArthur, for defendant in error.
¶1 This is an appeal from the district court of Stephens county, wherein judgment was rendered in favor of J. M. Jackson, defendant in error, but plaintiff in that court, in an action wherein he brought suit to recover $ 200 which he had paid George M. Yeager on the 25th day of August, 1927, as part payment on a contract for the purchase of real estate.
¶2 The written contract is as follows:
¶3 At that time the house was occupied by a tenant of Yeager. The purchaser, Jackson, paid $ 200 in August, 1927, at the time of the signing of the contract, made no other payment, and was never in possession of the premises.
¶4 On November 7, 1927, the purchaser, Jackson, as plaintiff, filed his suit to recover back the $ 200 he had paid upon the allegations and theory, in substance, that when he agreed to purchase the house and lot in August, the trade was made conditioned that he should receive possession of the premises by or before September 1st, in order that he might send his child to the Duncan public school, and that when the agreement was reduced to writing and signed by the parties, it was by agreement of the parties not to become effective and binding unless the vendor, Yeager, could and should deliver possession of the premises by or before September 1st; that he, the purchaser, Jackson, made consistent effort to obtain possession by or before September 1st; but could not, and did not, do so; that plaintiff in error could not, and did not, deliver the premises by the time agreed upon, and that therefore, the written contract never became effective, and for these reasons the purchaser, Jackson, claimed the right to the return of the $ 200 paid.
¶5 The defendant and vendor, Yeager, answered by general denial, and pleaded, and in the trial relied upon, the written contract, claiming, in substance, that he had always been ready to deliver the possession of the premises when the purchaser, Jackson, was ready to move in; and the vendor, Yeager, sought to compel specific performance of the written contract.
¶6 The purchaser, Jackson, replied by general denial, reiterating his claim that the contract was executed and delivered conditionally, and upon the condition that same should not become binding or effective unless possession of the premises was delivered by or before the time school opened on September 5, 1927; that Yeager was unable to deliver possession in accordance with the terms of said condition.
¶7 Upon these issues the cause was tried to the jury. There was evidence tending to sustain both the allegation and claim of the purchaser, Jackson, and the allegations and claims of the vendor, Yeager. The cause was submitted to the jury, which found generally for the plaintiff, Jackson, and that he was entitled to a return of the $ 200 paid.
¶8 The vendor, Yeager, as plaintiff in error, prosecutes this appeal and contends that whatever the oral negotiations were as to the time when the purchaser, Jackson, would want or be entitled to possession of the property, the written contract superseded them, and that the terms of the written contract cannot be varied by parol testimony. And the plaintiff in error presents assignments of error as follows: That the trial court erred in admitting the oral testimony as to the understanding or agreement that possession was to be furnished as a condition precedent to the contract becoming effective; that the trial court erred in submitting this issue of fact to the jury in certain instructions; and that the verdict and judgment are not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bredouw v. Jones
... ... HALLEY, C.J., JACKSON, V.C.J., and DAVISON and LAVENDER, JJ., concur ... BLACKBIRD, J., concurs in result ... WILLIAMS, IRVIN and ... See also, In re Fullerton's Estate, Okl. 375 P.2d 933; Fane Development Co. v. Townsend, Okl., 381 P.2d 1012 and Yeager v. Jackson, 162 Okl. 207, 19 P.2d 970 ... Where liability on a written instrument is sought to be avoided on the grounds of fraud, ... ...
-
Godfrey v. F. D. Bearley Lbr. Co.
... ... 142, 203 P. 226; Anicker v. Doyle et al., 84 Okla. 62. 202 P. 281; Lieberman v. Merring, Martin & Boise Co., 84 Okla. 168, 203 P. 1045; Yeager v. Jackson, 162 Okla. 207, 19 P.2d 970; and Temple et al. v. Dugger, 164 Okla. 84, 21 P.2d 482; Broswood Oil & Gas Co. v. Mary Oil & Gas Co., 164 ... ...
-
First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Norman, Okl. v. Security Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Norman, Okl.
... ... That Oklahoma law comports with that of Texas on this issue is clear. 15 O.S.1981 §§ 137, 154 and 155; Yeager v. Jackson, 162 Okl. 207, 19 P.2d 970 (1933); Davon Drilling Co. v. Ginder, Okl., 467 P.2d 470 (1970); In Re Public Leasing Corp. (10th Cir.1973), ... ...
-
Quincy Johnston, Inc. v. Wilson, 38224
... ... DAVISON, C. J., and HALLEY, JOHNSON, JACKSON, IRWIN and BERRY, JJ., concur ... WILLIAMS, V. C. J., and WELCH and BLACKBIRD, JJ., dissent ... WILLIAMS, Vice ... In Pray v. Kidd Williams Drilling Corporation, Okl., 352 P.2d 380, 384, this court said: ... 'In Yeager v. Jackson, 1933, 162 Okl. 207, 19 P.2d 970, defendant was allowed to introduce parol evidence that a written realty purchase contract was not to ... ...