Neiswender v. Bolen

214 P. 96, 113 Kan. 271, 1923 Kan. LEXIS 375
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedApril 7, 1923
DocketNo. 24,164
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 214 P. 96 (Neiswender v. Bolen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Neiswender v. Bolen, 214 P. 96, 113 Kan. 271, 1923 Kan. LEXIS 375 (kan 1923).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Hopkins, J.:

On August 17, 1920, plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract whereby plaintiff was to sell and deliver to defendant 1,000 bushels of corn, No. 3 or better, at $1.20 per bushel, on track at Tecumseh or Topeka, to be shipped on or before December 31 following. Thereafter it was orally agreed that the com should be delivered at Tecumseh. On December 30 following, the plaintiff tendered 1,000 bushels of corn to the defendant on track at Tecumseh, which the defendant refused to accept.

In a trial to the court the plaintiff recovered judgment for $660, that amount being the difference between- the market price of the corn on that day and the price agreed upon between the parties. Defendant appeals. His contention was that the corn tendered at Tecumseh was not grown on plaintiff’s land, and that the corn which he contracted to purchase was that growing on plaintiff’s farm when he made the contract.

Written confirmation of the sale, signed by the defendant, discloses no stipulation that the corn purchased by defendant was growing on plaintiff’s farm, or that plaintiff should deliver corn growing upon his farm. Testimony that the corn purchased by defendant was growing or was to be grown on plaintiff’s farm would have varied the written contract, and therefore was not [272]*272admissible, and, if admitted, was properly not considered by the court.

In the case of Hopkins v. Woldert Grocery Co. [Tex.] 66 S. W. 63, it was held that where the defendant agreed in writing to deliver a certain quantity of pecans at a specified place, time and price, parol evidence that such pecans were to be grown in certain territory would add to the contract and was therefore inadmissible.

The evidence in this case abundantly supports the judgment. No reversible error being shown, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Lodgistix, Inc.
802 F. Supp. 370 (D. Kansas, 1992)
Wendling v. Puls
610 P.2d 580 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1980)
Desbien v. Penokee Farmers Union Cooperative Ass'n
552 P.2d 917 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1976)
Sonken-Galamba Corp. v. Butler Iron & Steel Co.
119 F.2d 283 (Eighth Circuit, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
214 P. 96, 113 Kan. 271, 1923 Kan. LEXIS 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neiswender-v-bolen-kan-1923.