Slater v. Van Der Hoogt
Slater v. Van Der Hoogt
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The affidavit of defense is without merit, and the court was right in entering judgment upon the plaintiffs’ motion.
The written agreement, the execution of which the defendants do not deny, purports to embody the entire transaction, and there is no such ambiguity in it as would warrant the introduction of parol evidence in explanation of its recitals, under any established exception to the time-honored rule that excludes such evidence in explanation or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument.
The terms of the agreement, by which the plaintiffs are permitted to share the profits that might be made upon the sale of
The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.
It is so ordered. Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- SLATER v. VAN DER HOOGT
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Affidavits of Defense; Parol Evidence; Partnership. 1. In a suit on a written instrument, which purports to embody the entire transaction and contains no such ambiguity as would warrant the introduction of parol evidence under any established exception to the rule that excludes such evidence in explanation or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument, an affidavit of defense is insufficient which does not deny its execution but seeks to explain its recitals. 2. An agreement between borrower and lender which provides that upon the sale of certain tax certificates delivered by the former to the latter as security for the loan, the lender shall share in profits that may be made upon the sale of the certificates, which profits are expressly promised in addition to the repayment of the loan and interest thereon, does not make the lender a partner of the borrower.