Minnesota Supreme Court, 1888

C. Aultman & Co. v. Brown

C. Aultman & Co. v. Brown
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 7, 1888 · Dickinson
39 Minn. 323; 40 N.W. 159; 1888 Minn. LEXIS 104 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

John N. Ives and P. G. Schmidt, for appellant.', Pierce do Cromb and W. E. Akers, for respondent.

C. Aultman & Co. v. Brown

Opinion of the Court

Dickinson, J.

The evidence of the parol agreement, contemporaneous with the written acceptance, was properly excluded. The agreement thus sought to be shown was of a nature to vary the definite legal obligation clearly expressed in the written contract, and, if allowed to affect the case, it would have made the defendant’s liability to be different from that expressed in the written instrument. It would have made that liability to depend upon conditions not there expressed or referred to.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.