Simanovich v. Wood

13 N.E. 391, 145 Mass. 180, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 41
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 20, 1887·Published·Cited by 22 cases

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

This is an action of contract on a covenant against incumbrances in a deed from the defendant to the plaintiff. It is admitted that an unpaid assessment upon the land was an incumbrance within the covenant. Carr v. Dooley, 119 Mass. 294. The defendant offered to prove, by paroi testimony, that, at the time the deed was given, and as a part of the consideration, the plaintiff promised to pay said assessment.

This evidence was rightly rejected. It directly varied and contradicted the written contract of the defendant. The covenant is against all incumbrances. The evidence offered was for the purpose of showing an oral agreement that the incumbrance created by the assessment was not within the covenant.

While for some purposes it is competent to show what the real consideration of a deed is, a party cannot, under the guise of showing what the consideration is, prove an oral agreement, either antecedent to or contemporaneous with the deed, which will cut down' or vary the stipulations of his written covenant. This would violate the well-settled rule of law, which will not permit a written contract to be varied or controlled by such testimony. Howe v. Walker, 4 Gray, 818. Spurr v. Andrew, 6 Allen, 420. Flynn v. Bourneuf, 148 Mass. 277.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Simanovich v. Wood, 13 N.E. 391, 145 Mass. 180, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 41 (Mass. 1887).

13 N.E. 391 (Simanovich v. Wood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Paloni v. Beebe
110 P.2d 563 (Utah Supreme Court, 1941)
Cary v. Manfull
287 P. 433 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1930)
Newcomb v. Newcomb
239 Ill. App. 256 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1926)
Stone v. Shuttle
3 Tenn. App. 274 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1925)
Bilby v. Halsell
1924 OK 1164 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Hagen v. Lehmann
234 Ill. App. 395 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1924)
Wood v. James
106 A. 566 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1918)
Orpin v. Morrison
230 Mass. 529 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Lamoille County Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Belden
98 A. 1002 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1916)
Laclede Laundry Co. v. Freudenstein
161 S.W. 593 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1913)
Williams v. Kniskern
177 Mich. 500 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1913)
Edison Electric Illuminating Co. v. Gibby Foundry Co.
80 N.E. 479 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Stickney v. Hughes
73 P. 945 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1904)
Gill v. Ferrin
52 A. 558 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1902)
Johnson v. Elmen
52 L.R.A. 162 (Texas Supreme Court, 1900)
Rooney v. Koenig
83 N.W. 399 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1900)
Clapp v. Wilder
50 L.R.A. 120 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1900)
Radigan v. Johnson
54 N.E. 358 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)
Ohlert v. Alderson
57 N.W. 88 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1893)
Brown v. Holyoke Water Power Co.
32 N.E. 2 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)