TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wallace v. Rogers

JAMES WALLACE v. BENJAMIN ROGERS

Wallace v. Rogers, 2 N.H. 506 (1822)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Superior Court of New Hampshire · State Trial Courts
Decided
October 15, 1822
Citations
2 N.H. 506
Headnotes
(1) 3 Cranch sit, Harris
Summary
Where A. sold to B. several bags of hops, and gave a bill of parcels, stating th# number of bags, the weight, price, &c.> with these words, tl the hops are war- “ ranted to be first qualityin an action by B. against A. for a false warranty of the hops ; it was held, that A, was not precluded by the bill of parcels frora-shewing, that the hops were warranted, only in case they were carried by B. to a particular place. Case for a false warranty of certain hops sold by the defendant to the plaintiff, December 15, 1818. The cause was tried here at October term, 1821rupon the general issue. The plaintiff gave in evidence to the jury a bill of parcels, signed by the defendant, specifying the number of bags, the weight, and the price, with these words, “ the hops are warranted to be first quality and then introduced evidence to shew, that part of the hops were refuse, and the rest second quality. The defendant then introduced testimony to prove, that at the time the contract was made and the hops sold, it was agreed, that if the plaintiff should send the hops to Charles-town, in Massachusetts, to be inspected, the defendant should warrant them to be of the first quality ; but if sent to Canada or to New-York, then they were not to be considered as warranted. To the admission of this testimony,, the plaintiff objected, but it was admitted by the court, and the jury having returned a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff moved the court to grant a new trial.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

By ike court.

It is well settled as a general rule, that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict, add to, or vary the terms of a written instrument.

But to this general rule there are exceptions. 7 Mass. Rep. 297 , Barrett vs. Rogers. —2 D. & E. 366, Stratton vs. Rastall.—1 1 Mass. Rep. 27 , Stackpole vs. Arnold. —6 ditto 430, Barker vs. Prentiss.—2 J ohn. 378, House vs. Low. —3 ditto 319, M’Kinstry vs. Pearsall —5 ditto 68, Tobey vs. Bar her. —8 ditto 389, Putnam vs. Lewis. —4 ditto 23, Kip vs. Deniston. —9 ditto 310, Johnson vs. Weed.—6 Cranch 31 8.-1 Strange 674.

(1) 3 Cranch sit, Harris

Arte! a bill of parcels has been decided to be within the •exceptions to the rule ;(1) and we are of opinion, that there -must be, in this case, Judgment for the defendant.

How later courts describe this case

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

1827–1828: 11851–1852: 218272026peak 1851 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Parker v. Pattee4 N.H. 176 (1827)
  2. Woodward v. Miles24 N.H. 289 (1851)
  3. Webster v. Hodgkins25 N.H. 128 (1852)

Most recent

  1. Webster v. Hodgkins25 N.H. 128 (1852)
  2. Woodward v. Miles24 N.H. 289 (1851)
  3. Parker v. Pattee4 N.H. 176 (1827)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Barrett v. Rogers, 7 Mass. 297 (1811) 24

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