Stull v. Thompson
This text of 25 A. 890 (Stull v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
To reverse this case would be going further than we have ever yet gone in allowing a written instrument under seal to be contradicted by parol evidence. We have gone quite far enough in that direction, especially in view of the law of evidence as it now exists which permits a party in interest to testify. The rent under this lease was reserved in money, and the offer referred to in the first specification was to show that at least a portion of the rent was to be taken out in boarding. This was a direct contradiction of the terms of the lease, and was properly excluded. The case is admittedly close under some of our decisions, but we think was properly decided.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
25 A. 890, 154 Pa. 43, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stull-v-thompson-pa-1893.