History
  • No items yet
midpage
Eubanks v. Gulley
94 Ind. App. 650
Ind. Ct. App.
1932
Check Treatment

This was an action by appellees to recover upon an alleged parol contract for the sale of tobacco. The appellees attempted to introduce a written contract and upon the court's rejection the substance thereof was proven orally. The court found for appellees and rendered judgment accordingly. Appellant's motion *Page 651 for a new trial being overruled, he brings this appeal, assigning that ruling as error. The reasons assigned in the motion for a new trial are: The decision is contrary to law — the decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and, error in allowing proof of the contents of a written instrument by parol and the use of such parol testimony to support an allegation in the complaint of a parol contract.

There is no brief on behalf of appellees.

The appellant has shown prima facie reversible error in the introduction of evidence of a written contract by parol, and in the absence of a showing that the written contract was 1. lost, destroyed or unobtainable, the judgment of the Dearborn Circuit Court must be reversed and it is so ordered.

Case Details

Case Name: Eubanks v. Gulley
Court Name: Indiana Court of Appeals
Date Published: Jul 26, 1932
Citation: 94 Ind. App. 650
Docket Number: No. 14,354.
Court Abbreviation: Ind. Ct. App.
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.