Fowler v. Zimmerman

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Fowler v. Zimmerman

42 App. D.C. 70, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2237

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 2, 1914

DocketNo. 2631

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 42 App. D.C. 70 (Fowler v. Zimmerman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fowler v. Zimmerman, 42 App. D.C. 70, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2237 (D.C. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Shefakd

delivered the opinion of the Court:

1. The ground of the motion to dismiss is that the appeal noted was from the judgment denying the motion to vacate, and not from the judgment on the note. We are of the opinion that the notice of appeal sufficiently indicated the final judgment on the note, and the motion is denied.

2. The motion to affirm is granted.

“The written agreement, the execution of which the defendants do- not deny, purports to embody the entire transaction, and there is no such ambiguity in it as would warrant the introduction of parol evidence in explanation of its recitals, under any established exception to' the time-honored rule that excludes such evidence in explanation or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument.” Slater v. Van der Hoogt, 23 App. D. C. 417, 420. See also Knight v. W. T. Walker Brick Co. 23 App. D. C. 519, 525.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs. Affirmed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Shefakd

delivered the opinion of the Court:

1. The ground of the motion to dismiss is that the appeal noted was from the judgment denying the motion to vacate, and not from the judgment on the note. We are of the opinion that the notice of appeal sufficiently indicated the final judgment on the note, and the motion is denied.

2. The motion to affirm is granted.

“The written agreement, the execution of which the defendants do- not deny, purports to embody the entire transaction, and there is no such ambiguity in it as would warrant the introduction of parol evidence in explanation of its recitals, under any established exception to' the time-honored rule that excludes such evidence in explanation or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument.” Slater v. Van der Hoogt, 23 App. D. C. 417, 420. See also Knight v. W. T. Walker Brick Co. 23 App. D. C. 519, 525.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 App. D.C. 70, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fowler-v-zimmerman-dc-1914.

Opinion

2. The motion to affirm is granted.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack