Jewett v. Moses

D.C. Circuit

Jewett v. Moses

46 App. D.C. 314, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2550

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 9, 1917

DocketNo. 3002

StatusPublished

This text of 46 App. D.C. 314 (Jewett v. Moses) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jewett v. Moses, 46 App. D.C. 314, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2550 (D.C. Cir. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

All of the argument that has here been made in respect of the rights of the attorneys may be put aside. They had no assignment or lien, and have not made themselves parties to the action.

This is not a case of the misrepresentation of a fact, but a promise to do something in the future. The contract, therefore, was not based on any misrepresentation as to its actual contents. It amounts, then, to this: Plaintiff seeks to vary the written contract by Inserting therein a provision for his employment and the settlement of his attorneys. The contract is complete in itself, and cannot be varied by such parol provision. The party was not induced to sign the contract by any fraudulent misrepresentation of fact, and he must abide by it.

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 Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

All of the argument that has here been made in respect of the rights of the attorneys may be put aside. They had no assignment or lien, and have not made themselves parties to the action.

This is not a case of the misrepresentation of a fact, but a promise to do something in the future. The contract, therefore, was not based on any misrepresentation as to its actual contents. It amounts, then, to this: Plaintiff seeks to vary the written contract by Inserting therein a provision for his employment and the settlement of his attorneys. The contract is complete in itself, and cannot be varied by such parol provision. The party was not induced to sign the contract by any fraudulent misrepresentation of fact, and he must abide by it.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 App. D.C. 314, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jewett-v-moses-cadc-1917.