History
  • No items yet
midpage
Hiatt v. Simpson
8 Ind. 256
Ind.
1856
Check Treatment
Stuart, J.

Suit on a note made by the appellants to the appellee. On its face it is a plain note of hand, waiving appraisement, and signed by the makers personally. Answer, that in making the note the makers acted only as the agents of the Cincinnati and Chicago Railroad Company — in brief, setting up a contemporaneous understanding, to control the express terms of *257the note. Demurrer to the answer sustained. And correctly too. Oral contemporaneotis agreements not be permitted to bo given in evidence to control the effect of a written instrument. Harvey v. Laflin, 2 Ind. R. 477.

J. Mariden, for the appellants. O. P. Morion and L. Heodin, for the appellee.

The defendants in making the note, assumed to act in their individual capacity, and they cannot be permitted to contradict it by showing -that they acted in any other capacity.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed with 10 per cent, damages and costs.

Case Details

Case Name: Hiatt v. Simpson
Court Name: Indiana Supreme Court
Date Published: Dec 1, 1856
Citation: 8 Ind. 256
Court Abbreviation: Ind.
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.