21 N.H. 224 | Superior Court of New Hampshire | 1850
The writing produced in evidence is a bill of sale of the horses, containing a receipt for the payment of their price. Nothing is said in it about a warranty of their soundness.
■The plaintiffs have proved by parol evidence independent of the writing, and having no connection with it, that the defendant, at the time of the sale, warranted the horses to be sound.
The court ruled, that the writing must be presumed to contain the contract between the parties, and that parol evidence was not admissible to prove a contract of warranty not contained in the writing.
Parol evidence is not admissible to vary or control the writing, and if the evidence offered has that effect, it was properly excluded. Rut we think that the evidence was competent. The plaintiffs did1 not rely on the writing to make out their case, nor was it necessary that they should do so. The evidence of the warranty does not contradict or vary the effect of the writing in any degree. It does not even explain it, and it needs no explanation by evidence aliunde. The defendant proved a warranty by evidence as independent of the writing, as one
Verdict set aside.