Andrus v. Mann

Citations

• 92 Ill. 40

Syllabus

<p>1. Pabol evidence—to vary written contract. There is no rule more familiar or of more uniform application than that parties can not introduce verbal testimony to contradict, change or vary written contracts, at law. This can only be received to show a mistake, on bill in equity to reform the written contract.</p> <p>2. It is the settled doctrine of this court, where an instrument, is partly a receipt and partly a contract, that the part constituting the agreement of the parties can not be contradicted or varied by parol testimony.</p> <p>3. Same—and herein, whether a sale or a lease. An instrument reading: “ Received of A B, in apparent good order, on lease, one organ, No. —, manufactured by, etc., valued at $105, balance, for which I agree to pay rent at the rate of $10 per mouth for 10J months, payable monthly in advance, and return said organ on demand in as good order as received, usual wear excepted,— C D,” is a contract of leasing, and parol evidence is inadmissible to show the contract to be one of sale.</p>