Skinner v. Hendrick

1 Root 253
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided February 15, 1791·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

Parol evidence is not admissible, to prove a deed delivered to the party, to be an escrow; or to prove any parol conditions, which would defeat or control its legal effect and operation. Holt’s Rept. Bushnel v. Pasmore, 213; Lothrop v. Bulkley, New Haven adjourned Superior Court, December 1172; where a parol condition was plead in bar of a note delivered to the plaintiff, and Babcock v. Steadman, adjudged upon a writ of error, that a parol condition cannot defeat or control a note delivered directly to the promisee.— Windham adjourned Superior Court December term, A. D. 1788.

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

Skinner v. Hendrick, 1 Root 253 (Colo. 1791).

1 Root 253 (Skinner v. Hendrick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Beers v. Beers
22 Mich. 42 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1870)
Inhabitants of Reading v. Inhabitants of Weston
8 Conn. 117 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1830)