Southern Const. Co. v. Farnham Co.

Third Circuit

Southern Const. Co. v. Farnham Co.

148 F. 619, 78 C.C.A. 641

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedNovember 12, 1906

DocketNo. 11

StatusPublished

This text of 148 F. 619 (Southern Const. Co. v. Farnham Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Southern Const. Co. v. Farnham Co., 148 F. 619, 78 C.C.A. 641 (3d Cir. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

The decision of the circuit court is sufficiently supported by the opinion of the learned District Judge. 144 Fed. 989. The. suggestion now made, that the only extrinsic proof requisite to sustain the defense which he held to be insufficient in law, would be of “a consideration additional to the consideration named in the writing,” cannot be accepted. What really was proposed by the affidavit of defense was not merely to show by oral evidence that, as a fact, a consideration other than that mentioned in the written contract was given, but to vary the terms of the contract itself, by adding to it an obligation-creating provision which it did not contain; and this could not be done without violation of the long-settled rule, that when a contract has been reduced to the form of a document or series of documents, the contents of any such document or documents may not be contradicted, altered, added' to, or varied by oral evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

The decision of the circuit court is sufficiently supported by the opinion of the learned District Judge. 144 Fed. 989. The. suggestion now made, that the only extrinsic proof requisite to sustain the defense which he held to be insufficient in law, would be of “a consideration additional to the consideration named in the writing,” cannot be accepted. What really was proposed by the affidavit of defense was not merely to show by oral evidence that, as a fact, a consideration other than that mentioned in the written contract was given, but to vary the terms of the contract itself, by adding to it an obligation-creating provision which it did not contain; and this could not be done without violation of the long-settled rule, that when a contract has been reduced to the form of a document or series of documents, the contents of any such document or documents may not be contradicted, altered, added' to, or varied by oral evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 F. 619, 78 C.C.A. 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-const-co-v-farnham-co-ca3-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack