C. Aultman & Co. v. Brown

Supreme Court of Minnesota

C. Aultman & Co. v. Brown

40 N.W. 159, 39 Minn. 323, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 104

DecidedNovember 7, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 40 N.W. 159 (C. Aultman & Co. v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

C. Aultman & Co. v. Brown, 40 N.W. 159, 39 Minn. 323, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 104 (Mich. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Dickinson, J.

The evidence of the parol agreement, contemporaneous with the written acceptance, was properly excluded. The agreement thus sought to be shown was of a nature to vary the definite legal obligation clearly expressed in the written contract, and, if allowed to affect the case, it would have made the defendant’s liability to be different from that expressed in the written instrument. It would have made that liability to depend upon conditions not there expressed or referred to.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dickinson, J.

The evidence of the parol agreement, contemporaneous with the written acceptance, was properly excluded. The agreement thus sought to be shown was of a nature to vary the definite legal obligation clearly expressed in the written contract, and, if allowed to affect the case, it would have made the defendant’s liability to be different from that expressed in the written instrument. It would have made that liability to depend upon conditions not there expressed or referred to.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 N.W. 159, 39 Minn. 323, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-aultman-co-v-brown-minn-1888.