Ewer v. Washington Insurance
This text of 33 Mass. 502 (Ewer v. Washington Insurance) 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.
Opinion
The memorandum is unambiguous in its language, and is admitted to be a part of the contract and to constitute a warranty that the ship insured was spoken with as therein stated ; and it is perfectly clear, that “ 27th August ” was inserted by mistake instead of “ 20th August.” Perhaps a court of chancery would reform the policy, in such a case ; but the only question before us is, whether, in a court of law, the parol evidence was admissible ; and we are of opinion that the general rule must be applied, that parol evidence cannot be ■ received to vary, contradict or control a written contract. Miller v. Travers, 8 Bingh. 244, and Higginson v. Dall, 13 Mass. R. 96, are very strong cases on this point.
New trial granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
33 Mass. 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ewer-v-washington-insurance-mass-1835.