Wallace v. Rogers
JAMES WALLACE v. BENJAMIN ROGERS
Headnotes
Summary
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.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.