History
  • No items yet
midpage
Beatty v. Larzelere
194 Pa. 605
Pa.
1900
Check Treatment
Per Curiam,

The contest in the court below turned upon the question whether a new parol contract was made between the parties after the written contract was made, and its execution had been proceeded with to a certain stage. The learned court below fairly and correctly submitted that question to the jury with appropriate instructions, and the juiy found in favor of the defendant. There was a sufficiency of testimony to warrant the submission of the question to the jury, and to sustain their verdict. There is no legal difficulty in the way to disable the parties from making such an agreement, and the agreement itself, if and when, subsequently made, and upon the consideration which moved the parties to enter into it, does not in the least infringe upon the rule which prohibits the giving of parol proof to alter or contradict the terms of a written instrument. The assignments of error are without merit and are dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Beatty v. Larzelere
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Feb 12, 1900
Citation: 194 Pa. 605
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 205
Court Abbreviation: Pa.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.