Smith Etc. v. Holmwood

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Smith Etc. v. Holmwood

87 Pa. Super. 100, 1925 Pa. Super. LEXIS 28

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 19, 1925

DocketAppeal 168

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 87 Pa. Super. 100 (Smith Etc. v. Holmwood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith Etc. v. Holmwood, 87 Pa. Super. 100, 1925 Pa. Super. LEXIS 28 (Pa. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Gawthrop, J.,

Defendant appeals from a judgment against him in an action in assumpsit in which plaintiff sued to recover the price of advertising caused to be furnished by it to defendant in the Stanley Theatre Magazine and Program under a written contract. Defendant admitted the execution of the contract and attempted to avoid liability solely on the ground that he was induced to execute the contract by certain fraudulent representations made to him by plaintiff’s agent. The contract contained the following: “No agreement recognized unless stated on face of contract.” At the trial plaintiff proved its case by offering certain paragraphs of its statement of claim and the affidavit of defense. Defendant took the witness stand and was asked: “What representations plaintiff’s agent made to him before he signed the contract.” The objection to the question was sustained, an exception was noted for defendant, and the case closed, lie only error assigned is the refusal of the court below to permit the above question to be answered. The ruling was correct. Where parties have deliberately put their agreement in writing stipulating that all agreements must be in writing and that no verbal arrangements will be recognized, such a stipulation forms a material part of the contract and is enforceable as such. (See Meyercord Co. v. Gwilliam Mfg. Co., 85 Pa. Superior Ct. 33, and eases therein cited.) Parties may safeguard their rights by such a stipulation. If this were not so a contracting party would be powerless to protect himself from parol modifications of his solemn contract: Gross v. Exeter Machine Works, Inc., 277 Pa., 363. If the purpose of the question was not to introduce testimony to alter the written agreement, but to set it aside because it was procured by fraud, the learned counsel for defendant should have made an offer to *102 prove fraudulent representations made at the time of its execution. No such offer was made. The question was whether plaintiff’s agent made any representations “before you entered into the contract.” The trial judge cannot be convicted of error for sustaining the objection.

All of the assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Gawthrop, J.,

Defendant appeals from a judgment against him in an action in assumpsit in which plaintiff sued to recover the price of advertising caused to be furnished by it to defendant in the Stanley Theatre Magazine and Program under a written contract. Defendant admitted the execution of the contract and attempted to avoid liability solely on the ground that he was induced to execute the contract by certain fraudulent representations made to him by plaintiff’s agent. The contract contained the following: “No agreement recognized unless stated on face of contract.” At the trial plaintiff proved its case by offering certain paragraphs of its statement of claim and the affidavit of defense. Defendant took the witness stand and was asked: “What representations plaintiff’s agent made to him before he signed the contract.” The objection to the question was sustained, an exception was noted for defendant, and the case closed, lie only error assigned is the refusal of the court below to permit the above question to be answered. The ruling was correct. Where parties have deliberately put their agreement in writing stipulating that all agreements must be in writing and that no verbal arrangements will be recognized, such a stipulation forms a material part of the contract and is enforceable as such. (See Meyercord Co. v. Gwilliam Mfg. Co., 85 Pa. Superior Ct. 33, and eases therein cited.) Parties may safeguard their rights by such a stipulation. If this were not so a contracting party would be powerless to protect himself from parol modifications of his solemn contract: Gross v. Exeter Machine Works, Inc., 277 Pa., 363. If the purpose of the question was not to introduce testimony to alter the written agreement, but to set it aside because it was procured by fraud, the learned counsel for defendant should have made an offer to *102 prove fraudulent representations made at the time of its execution. No such offer was made. The question was whether plaintiff’s agent made any representations “before you entered into the contract.” The trial judge cannot be convicted of error for sustaining the objection.

All of the assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 Pa. Super. 100, 1925 Pa. Super. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-etc-v-holmwood-pasuperct-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack