Stull v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania January 30, 1893

Stull v. Thompson, 154 Pa. 43 (Pa. 1893)

25 A. 890; 1893 Pa. LEXIS 837

Dean, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterkett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

To reverse this case would be going further than we have ever yet gone in allowing a written instrument under seal to be contradicted by parol evidence. We have gone quite far enough in that direction, especially in view of the law of evidence as it now exists which permits a party in interest to testify. The rent under this lease was reserved in money, and the offer referred to in the first specification was to show that at least a portion of the rent was to be taken out in boarding. This was a direct contradiction of the terms of the lease, and was properly excluded. The case is admittedly close under some of our decisions, but we think was properly decided.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Cited By: 5 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Parol evidence to vary written instrument — Lease. Where rent is reserved in money in a lease, parol evidence will not be admitted to show that, immediately prior to the execution of the lease, the lessee was induced to sign the lease by a statement that part of the rent was to be taken out in boarding. Landlord and tenant — Untenantable premises — Covenantn-Hvidence. A lease provided that the tenant should surrender the premises in as good state and condition “as the same are now or may be put into” by the landlord. In an action for rent the tenant offered to prove that at the time the lease began and during the period of his occupation the roof was leaky, and that the house could not be used as a boarding house in consequence. Held, that the evidence was properly excluded.