TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Taylor v. Goding

Ransom C. Taylor v. Jacob L. Goding

Taylor v. Goding, 65 N.E. 64 (Mass. 1902)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 31, 1902
Judges
Lathrop
Citations
65 N.E. 64182 Mass. 2311902 Mass. LEXIS 998
Headnotes
Evidence, Extrinsic affecting writings. Landlord and Tenant. The lessee of a store, sued for rent upon a lease in writing, cannot vary and contradict the instrument by showing an oral agreement made between the parties before the execution of the lease that if during the term the lessee should take from the lessor a lease of another store and should vacate the first one the lessor would surrender all his rights under the first lease.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Lathrop

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Lathrop, J.

This is an action of contract on a written lease of a store, to recover rent for the last five months of the term. The answer sets up an oral agreement made by the parties before the execution of the lease, that if, during the term, the lessee should take a lease of another store of the lessor, and should vacate the store first leased, the lessor would thereupon surrender , all right under the original lease, and the lessee would be under no further liability thereon; that the lessee, relying upon the oral agreement and induced thereby, took a lease of another store of the plaintiff, and vacated the 'store first leased, before the beginning of the period of five months.

To this answer the plaintiff demurred on the ground that the oral agreement contradicted and altered the terms of the written lease, and would be inadmissible in evidence; and that it was no legal defence to the action upon the lease. The Superior Court sustained the demurrer, and ordered judgment for the plaintiff; and the case is before us on the defendant’s appeal.

We are of opinion that the oral agreement set up in the answer *232 contradicted and altered one of the express terms of the written contract, namely; that relating to the payment of rent; and that therefore the answer set up no defence. Merrigan v. Hall, 175 Mass. 508 , and cases cited. The case is not one of a collateral oral agreement as to a matter not mentioned in the written agreement, and not contradictory of itand therefore does not fall within Durkin t. Cobleigh, 156 Mass. 108 .

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1906: 11907: 11915: 11923: 11928: 119062026peak 1906 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hill v. Hall77 N.E. 831 (Mass. 1906)
  2. McCusker v. Geiger80 N.E. 648 (Mass. 1907)
  3. O'Malley v. Grady222 Mass. 202 (1915)
  4. Western Newspaper Union v. Dittemore161 N.E. 908 (Mass. 1928)
  5. Parriott v. Levis196 Iowa 875 (1923)

Most recent

  1. Western Newspaper Union v. Dittemore161 N.E. 908 (Mass. 1928)
  2. Parriott v. Levis196 Iowa 875 (1923)
  3. O'Malley v. Grady222 Mass. 202 (1915)
  4. McCusker v. Geiger80 N.E. 648 (Mass. 1907)
  5. Hill v. Hall77 N.E. 831 (Mass. 1906)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Durkin v. Cobleigh, 30 N.E. 474 (Mass. 1892) 60
Merrigan v. Hall, 56 N.E. 605 (Mass. 1900) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list