Fowler v. Zimmerman

District of Columbia Court of Appeals March 2, 1914

Fowler v. Zimmerman, 42 App. D.C. 70 (D.C. 1914)

1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2237

Shefakd

Opinion of the Court

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.

Reference

Full Case Name: FOWLER v. ZIMMERMAN
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Appeal and Error; Parol Evidence; Promissory Notes. 1. A notice of appeal beld sufficiently to indicate that the appeal was taken from the judgment, and not from the denial of a motion to vacate it. 2. Parol evidence is inadmissible to show that a promissory note was given in reliance upon the payee’s agreement to grant extensions of time until the maker could dispose of the property for which it was given. (Citing Slater v. Van der Hoogt, 23 App. D. C. 417, and Knight v. W. T. Walker Brick Co. 23 App. D. C. 539.)