Way v. Batchelder

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Way v. Batchelder

129 Mass. 361, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 250

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 10, 1880

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 129 Mass. 361 (Way v. Batchelder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Way v. Batchelder, 129 Mass. 361, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 250 (Mass. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Ames, J.

It is true that if the parties to a written instrument see fit to add to it a memorandum containing words which qualify or restrain its operation, those words become a part of the contract. Wheelock v. Freeman, 13 Pick. 165. Thus it was held in Heywood v. Perrin, 10 Pick. 228, that a note purporting on its face to be payable on demand was changed into a note payable in one year, by the addition of a memorandum below the promisor’s signature, by consent of parties, and before the delivery of the note.

The defendant says that the memorandum which was added to this note was originally written “ Due Oct. 11,” and that, for the purpose of correcting an error in the date of the note, it was altered by adding the words “ Oct. 12.” That is to say, his claim is that the memorandum should read, “ Due Oct. 11, Oct. 12.” But it is obvious that such a memorandum is repugnant and self-contradictory, and, for that reason, it is not to be considered as a part of the contract, or sufficient to contradict the terms used in the body of the note. Parol evidence as to what the parties meant by it would be inadmissible.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Ames, J.

It is true that if the parties to a written instrument see fit to add to it a memorandum containing words which qualify or restrain its operation, those words become a part of the contract. Wheelock v. Freeman, 13 Pick. 165. Thus it was held in Heywood v. Perrin, 10 Pick. 228, that a note purporting on its face to be payable on demand was changed into a note payable in one year, by the addition of a memorandum below the promisor’s signature, by consent of parties, and before the delivery of the note.

The defendant says that the memorandum which was added to this note was originally written “ Due Oct. 11,” and that, for the purpose of correcting an error in the date of the note, it was altered by adding the words “ Oct. 12.” That is to say, his claim is that the memorandum should read, “ Due Oct. 11, Oct. 12.” But it is obvious that such a memorandum is repugnant and self-contradictory, and, for that reason, it is not to be considered as a part of the contract, or sufficient to contradict the terms used in the body of the note. Parol evidence as to what the parties meant by it would be inadmissible.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 Mass. 361, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/way-v-batchelder-mass-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack