Detroit Ironton Rd. Co. v. Murry

Ohio Court of Appeals

Detroit Ironton Rd. Co. v. Murry

158 N.E. 205, 25 Ohio App. 409, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 259, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 552

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 11, 1927

Docket87

StatusPublished

This text of 158 N.E. 205 (Detroit Ironton Rd. Co. v. Murry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Detroit Ironton Rd. Co. v. Murry, 158 N.E. 205, 25 Ohio App. 409, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 259, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 552 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT.

Clarence Murry and wife sued the Detroit & Ironton Railroad Co. in the Fulton "Common Pleas to recover damages for breach of a contract made by the company, to purchase a strip of land 100 feet wide for a right of way; and recovered judgment for $800.

It was alleged that the real estate sold was and now is of the value of $200. The contract recites a consideration of $1150 and the company sought 1» prove that it was agreed that the greater portion of this amount was to be paid on account of damages accruing to the balance of Murry’s farm by reason of the construction of a railroad across the farm; and that the plan of construction had been abandoned by the Company. The Court of Appeals held:

1. The trial court, in excluding this evidence, was in error.

2. It is fundamental that the provisions of a written contract cannot be varied by parol evidence, but it is equally fundamental that this rule does not exclude evidence relating to the consideration.

3. The application of this rule does not deprive the Murrys of the right to recover whatever damages they actually suffered, directly arising from the breach of contract.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

(Richards, Williams & Lloyd, JJ., concur.)

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

BY THE COURT.

Clarence Murry and wife sued the Detroit & Ironton Railroad Co. in the Fulton "Common Pleas to recover damages for breach of a contract made by the company, to purchase a strip of land 100 feet wide for a right of way; and recovered judgment for $800.

It was alleged that the real estate sold was and now is of the value of $200. The contract recites a consideration of $1150 and the company sought 1» prove that it was agreed that the greater portion of this amount was to be paid on account of damages accruing to the balance of Murry’s farm by reason of the construction of a railroad across the farm; and that the plan of construction had been abandoned by the Company. The Court of Appeals held:

1. The trial court, in excluding this evidence, was in error.

2. It is fundamental that the provisions of a written contract cannot be varied by parol evidence, but it is equally fundamental that this rule does not exclude evidence relating to the consideration.

3. The application of this rule does not deprive the Murrys of the right to recover whatever damages they actually suffered, directly arising from the breach of contract.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

(Richards, Williams & Lloyd, JJ., concur.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 N.E. 205, 25 Ohio App. 409, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 259, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/detroit-ironton-rd-co-v-murry-ohioctapp-1927.

Opinion

1. The trial court, in excluding this evidence, was in error.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack