Porter v. Pierce
Opinion of the Court
On this case it must be taken for a fact found by the jury, that the note declared on and the writing signed by Huggins, were made at the same time.
Yerbal evidence was inadmissible to control or vary tho terms of the written agreement. But as the writing does not show, on its face, with whom it was made, and as it appears to have been for the benefit of Pierce, senior, though delivered to his son, the parol evidence was competent to explain that fact, if it were material, and show that the agreement was made with the defendant.
But this agreement of Huggins, whether made with' the defendant or his father, is collateral to the note, and cannot be set up to defeat this action. The note is a valid, negotiable security given on sufficient consideration. This is a contemporaneous agreement of the payee, that he will let a third person have the note, if, on settlement, any thing shall be found due from the payee to that third person. There is nothing in the agreement, from which it can be inferred that the note was to-be avoided, or defeated on any contingency. If, on the settlement contemplated,
Verdict set aside.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.