Lett v. Kunkle

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Lett v. Kunkle, 178 Pa. 273 (Pa. 1896)
35 A. 960; 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1162
Ctjbiam, Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Lett v. Kunkle

Opinion of the Court

Pee Ctjbiam,

We find nothing in the testimony that would have warranted the learned trial judge in submitting this case to the jury. He was therefore right in directing them to find in favor of the plaintiff, and in charging them in the language of plaintiff’s fourth point, that “ the note is the final contract of the parties in writing, and there being no competent evidence to go to the jury to impeach the note, the verdict should be for the plaintiff for the amount of the note and interest.” It follows that there was no error in refusing to affirm defendants’ points recited in the third to ninth specifications inclusive. There is nothing in the record that requires further notice. The assignments of error are all dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
John Lett v. J. L. Kunkle and M. P. Wilson, trading as Kunkle & Wilson
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published
Syllabus
Promissory note — Evidence—Parol evidence to vary terms of note. In an action upon a promissory note it is proper to give binding instructions for the plaintiff, the payee, where the only evidence for the defendants is that the note was signed without reading, under the impression that it was a receipt for horses to be sold upon commission, and not a promissory note for the purchase price of the horses.