Davis v. England

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Davis v. England

6 N.E. 731, 141 Mass. 587, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 261

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 8, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 6 N.E. 731 (Davis v. England) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. England, 6 N.E. 731, 141 Mass. 587, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 261 (Mass. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

The learned justice who presided in the Superior Court rightly ruled that the note sued on is the note of the defendant, and not of the Chelsea Iron Foundry Company. Tucker Manuf. Co. v. Fairbanks, 98 Mass. 101. But it was erroneous to admit oral testimony to show that, at the time the note was given and afterwards, it was understood and agreed by the parties that the note was the note of the Chelsea Iron Foundry Company.

Neither the pleadings nor the evidence raised the question whether the note had been discharged by any subsequent agreement. The note, being a written contract, is to be construed by the court. It is in law the contract of the defendant; and the ruling that the defendant might show, by oral testimony, that the parties understood that it was the note of the Chelsea Iron Foundry Company, violated the settled rule of law that a written contract cannot be controlled or varied by oral testimony.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Morton, C. J.

The learned justice who presided in the Superior Court rightly ruled that the note sued on is the note of the defendant, and not of the Chelsea Iron Foundry Company. Tucker Manuf. Co. v. Fairbanks, 98 Mass. 101. But it was erroneous to admit oral testimony to show that, at the time the note was given and afterwards, it was understood and agreed by the parties that the note was the note of the Chelsea Iron Foundry Company.

Neither the pleadings nor the evidence raised the question whether the note had been discharged by any subsequent agreement. The note, being a written contract, is to be construed by the court. It is in law the contract of the defendant; and the ruling that the defendant might show, by oral testimony, that the parties understood that it was the note of the Chelsea Iron Foundry Company, violated the settled rule of law that a written contract cannot be controlled or varied by oral testimony.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 N.E. 731, 141 Mass. 587, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-england-mass-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack