D. M. Watkins & Co. v. Greene

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

D. M. Watkins & Co. v. Greene

46 A. 38, 22 R.I. 34, 1900 R.I. LEXIS 37

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedApril 4, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 46 A. 38 (D. M. Watkins & Co. v. Greene) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

D. M. Watkins & Co. v. Greene, 46 A. 38, 22 R.I. 34, 1900 R.I. LEXIS 37 (R.I. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) We do not think that the word “appurtenances ” can be construed to include the furnishing of steam and forced air for the use of the complainants as lessees of the premises described in the bill.

(2) We do not think the complainants are entitled to show the existence of the alleged custom to substantiate their claim that the furnishing of steam and forced air passed under the lease as appurtenances. To permit this would be to add to the terms of the written instrument by parol, and we are of the opinion that when parties have embodied their agreements in formal instruments their security forbids the introduction of parol evidence to add to such instruments. Gage Mfg. Co. v. Woodward, 17 R. I. 464, 471; Myron v. Union R. R. Co., 19 R. I. 125.

Demurrer sustained.

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

Per Curiam.

(1) We do not think that the word “appurtenances ” can be construed to include the furnishing of steam and forced air for the use of the complainants as lessees of the premises described in the bill.

(2) We do not think the complainants are entitled to show the existence of the alleged custom to substantiate their claim that the furnishing of steam and forced air passed under the lease as appurtenances. To permit this would be to add to the terms of the written instrument by parol, and we are of the opinion that when parties have embodied their agreements in formal instruments their security forbids the introduction of parol evidence to add to such instruments. Gage Mfg. Co. v. Woodward, 17 R. I. 464, 471; Myron v. Union R. R. Co., 19 R. I. 125.

Demurrer sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A. 38, 22 R.I. 34, 1900 R.I. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/d-m-watkins-co-v-greene-ri-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack