History
  • No items yet
midpage
Fowler v. Zimmerman
42 App. D.C. 70
D.C.
1914
Check Treatment
Mr. Chief Justice Shefakd

delivered the opinion of the Court:

1. The ground of the motion to dismiss is that the appeal noted was from the judgment denying the motion to vacate, and not from the judgment on the note. We are of the opinion that the notice of appeal sufficiently indicated the final judgment on the note, and the motion is denied.

2. The motion to affirm is granted.

“The written agreement, the execution of which the defendants do- not deny, purports to embody the entire transaction, and there is no such ambiguity in it as would warrant the introduction of parol evidence in explanation of its recitals, under any established exception to' the time-honored rule that excludes such evidence in explanation or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument.” Slater v. Van der Hoogt, 23 App. D. C. 417, 420. See also Knight v. W. T. Walker Brick Co. 23 App. D. C. 519, 525.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs. Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Fowler v. Zimmerman
Court Name: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Date Published: Mar 2, 1914
Citation: 42 App. D.C. 70
Docket Number: No. 2631
Court Abbreviation: D.C.
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.