Skinner v. Hendrick

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Skinner v. Hendrick

1 Root 253

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedFebruary 15, 1791

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 Root 253 (Skinner v. Hendrick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Root 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skinner-v-hendrick-conn-1791.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack