TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Neiswender v. Bolen

E. B. Neiswender v. William F. Bolen

Neiswender v. Bolen, 214 P. 96 (Kan. 1923)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 7, 1923
Docket
No. 24,164
Judges
Hopkins
Citations
214 P. 96113 Kan. 2711923 Kan. LEXIS 375

Opinion of the Court — Hopkins

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by Hopkins, J.:

On August 17, 1920, plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract whereby plaintiff was to sell and deliver to defendant 1,000 bushels of corn, No. 3 or better, at $1.20 per bushel, on track at Tecumseh or Topeka, to be shipped on or before December 31 following. Thereafter it was orally agreed that the com should be delivered at Tecumseh. On December 30 following, the plaintiff tendered 1,000 bushels of corn to the defendant on track at Tecumseh, which the defendant refused to accept.

In a trial to the court the plaintiff recovered judgment for $660, that amount being the difference between- the market price of the corn on that day and the price agreed upon between the parties. Defendant appeals. His contention was that the corn tendered at Tecumseh was not grown on plaintiff’s land, and that the corn which he contracted to purchase was that growing on plaintiff’s farm when he made the contract.

Written confirmation of the sale, signed by the defendant, discloses no stipulation that the corn purchased by defendant was growing on plaintiff’s farm, or that plaintiff should deliver corn growing upon his farm. Testimony that the corn purchased by defendant was growing or was to be grown on plaintiff’s farm would have varied the written contract, and therefore was not *272 admissible, and, if admitted, was properly not considered by the court.

In the case of Hopkins v. Woldert Grocery Co. [Tex.] 66 S. W. 63 , it was held that where the defendant agreed in writing to deliver a certain quantity of pecans at a specified place, time and price, parol evidence that such pecans were to be grown in certain territory would add to the contract and was therefore inadmissible.

The evidence in this case abundantly supports the judgment. No reversible error being shown, the judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1941: 11976: 11980: 11992: 119412026peak 1941 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Lodgistix, Inc.802 F. Supp. 370 (D. Kan. 1992)
  2. Desbien v. Penokee Farmers Union Cooperative Ass'n552 P.2d 917 (Kan. 1976)
  3. Wendling v. Puls610 P.2d 580 (Kan. 1980)
  4. Sonken-Galamba Corp. v. Butler Iron & Steel Co.119 F.2d 283 (8th Cir. 1941)

Most recent

  1. Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Lodgistix, Inc.802 F. Supp. 370 (D. Kan. 1992)
  2. Wendling v. Puls610 P.2d 580 (Kan. 1980)
  3. Desbien v. Penokee Farmers Union Cooperative Ass'n552 P.2d 917 (Kan. 1976)
  4. Sonken-Galamba Corp. v. Butler Iron & Steel Co.119 F.2d 283 (8th Cir. 1941)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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