Boynton v. Johnson

Citations

• 68 Wash. 370
• 123 P. 522
• 1912 Wash. LEXIS 1296

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Oral Evidence — Incomplete Written Contract. Where a written agreement for subletting railroad contract work contained nothing respecting advances, in an action between the parties for advances made by plaintiff to defendants under an oral agreement, in which the defendants also pleaded an oral agreement limiting their liability for the advances to the contract price, oral evidence as to the agreement between the parties is admissible, since it was conceded that the written contract did not contain the entire agreement.</p> <p>Evidence — Oral Evidence — Written Contract — Construction— Fraud. In an action upon a contract subletting railroad construction work, in which defendants claimed fraud in misrepresenting the “classification” or character of the work and the “haul” or distance that the earth was to be moved, and that the contract had been modified by a subsequent oral agreement whereby plaintiff was to pay defendants for extra work in moving rock and cement gravel instead of earth, and for the extra distance of over 1,000 feet, as an overhaul, oral evidence is admissible as to the meaning of the words “classification” and “haul” in the contract, and as to the character of the work and distance the earth was to be moved.</p> <p>Same. The fact that plans and specifications were by reference made a part of a subcontract for railroad construction work, does not preclude oral evidence as to the character of the work to be done, when the same was misrepresented to the defendants, who were thereby prevented from seeing the plans and inspecting the work.</p>