National Cash Register Co. v. Webb

Mississippi Supreme Court

National Cash Register Co. v. Webb

11 So. 2d 205, 194 Miss. 626, 1942 Miss. LEXIS 167

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 21, 1942

DocketNo. 35184.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 11 So. 2d 205 (National Cash Register Co. v. Webb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

National Cash Register Co. v. Webb, 11 So. 2d 205, 194 Miss. 626, 1942 Miss. LEXIS 167 (Mich. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Griffith, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The controversy here is between appellant and appellee, as of course. Appellee introduced oral evidence to show that he was an employee of appellant company, and that by virtue of that employment the company was due him more than the amount which the company is endeavoring to enforce against him. The company objected to this oral evidence on the ground that there existed a written contract between appellee and one Whistler which, according to its terms, would show that appellee was solely in the employment of Whistler during the period involved. Whistler is no party to the suit and appellee is not relying on the written contract between him and Whistler. The rule excluding parol evidence to vary or contradict a written instrument applies only in controversies between the parties to the instrument and those claiming under them. See 22 C. J., p. 1292, and the numerous cases cited thereunder, including two from this state, both of which are in direct accord with the rule as stated.

Affirmed.

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

Griffith, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The controversy here is between appellant and appellee, as of course. Appellee introduced oral evidence to show that he was an employee of appellant company, and that by virtue of that employment the company was due him more than the amount which the company is endeavoring to enforce against him. The company objected to this oral evidence on the ground that there existed a written contract between appellee and one Whistler which, according to its terms, would show that appellee was solely in the employment of Whistler during the period involved. Whistler is no party to the suit and appellee is not relying on the written contract between him and Whistler. The rule excluding parol evidence to vary or contradict a written instrument applies only in controversies between the parties to the instrument and those claiming under them. See 22 C. J., p. 1292, and the numerous cases cited thereunder, including two from this state, both of which are in direct accord with the rule as stated.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 So. 2d 205, 194 Miss. 626, 1942 Miss. LEXIS 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-cash-register-co-v-webb-miss-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack