Jones v. Webber
This text of 1 D. Chip. 215 (Jones v. Webber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
To admit this evidence would be, not only against an express provision of the statute, but against the known and established rule of evidence, at common law — that parol proof cannot be admitted to add to or vary a written contract. But, had all this been in writing, it would make no defence in the case; it could not effect the plaintiff’s right to recover at law. The defend.aiit would not certainly have been in a better situation than a mortgagor, after the day of payment is passed.
Verdict for the plaintiff, against William Webber, _ and for costs in favor of Benedict Webber, against the plaintiff.
The defendant filed a motion to redeem which was continued by agreement of the parties.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 D. Chip. 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-webber-vt-1814.