Minnesota Supreme Court, 1893

Phoenix Publishing Co. v. Riverside Clothing Co.

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 14, 1893 · Mitchell

54 Minn. 205; 55 N.W. 912; 1893 Minn. LEXIS 45 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

W. A. McDowell, for appellant., Peterson & Kalliner, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2016, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

Anchor Bank, N. A. v. Matthew L. Gulbransen (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
Randy Lundgren v. Diane Cash (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota (Minn. 2003)
C. Wayne Leneave v. North American Life Assurance Company (8th Cir. 1988)
Hield v. Thyberg (Minn. 1984)
Montgomery v. American Hoist & Derrick Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
Bussard v. College of Saint Thomas, Inc. (Minn. 1972)
Jimmerson v. Troy Seed Co. (Minn. 1952)
Bjornstad v. Northern States Power Co. (Minn. 1935)
Hoy v. Nichols (Minn. 1927)
Moran v. Wilson (Ind. Ct. App. 1922)
Shinners v. Ford (Minn. 1922)
Black v. North Dakota State Fair Ass'n (N.D. 1917)
Samuel H. Chute Co. v. Latta (Minn. 1913)
McLoone v. Brusch (Minn. 1912)
Rutherford v. Selover (Minn. 1902)
Potter v. Easton (Minn. 1901)
Evans v. N. B. McElfresh (Kan. 1911)
Durham v. Lathrop (Ill. App. Ct. 1901)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Mitchell, J.

The rule forbidding the use of parol evidence to' affect a written instrument does not apply to a case where a part only of the dealings between the parties in respect to a particular subject-matter is reduced to writing, except as respects such part. It is always competent to prove by parol the existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which the document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, if, from the circumstances of the case, the court infers that the parties did not intend the document to be a complete and final statement of the whole of the transaction between them. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 284a; *207Steph. Dig. Ev. art. 90; Domestic Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Anderson, 23 Minn. 57; Boynton Furnace Co. v. Clark, 42 Minn. 335, (44 N. W. Rep. 121;) Beyerstedt v. Winona Mill Co., 49 Minn. 1, (51 N. W. Rep. 619;) Routledge v. Worthington Co., 119 N. Y. 592, (23 N. E. Rep. 111.) This rule, which is elementary, disposes of the only point in the case. The order given by defendant did not purport to be a full and final statement of the whole transaction between the parties. In fact, in and of itself it was not a contract at all. No obligation was assumed or agreement expressed in it on the part of the plaintiff. Parol evidence would have to be resorted to at the very outset to prove a contract. Of course, when the order was accepted, there was a binding contract, and, in so far as its terms were expressed in the order, they could not be varied or contradicted by parol. But, even after acceptance, the order would not purport to be a complete statement of the whole contract. Parol evidence would still have to be resorted to to show what these proposed “sketches” were to be, and it was entirely competent to prove the existence of any oral agreement as to what they should be or contain as to any matter as to which the order was silent, and which was not inconsistent with its terms. Such, we think, was the agreement that defendant should be the only one in the same line of business in that neighborhood whose advertisements should be given space in the proposed publication.

Note. See Burke v. Dulaney, 158 U. S. 228. [Reporter. (Opinion published 55 N. W. Rep. 913.)

Judgment affirmed.

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