Bruce v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.

Citations

• 87 Va. 381
• 13 S.E. 153
• 1891 Va. LEXIS 80

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence—Parol—Admissible as to third parties.—The rule excluding parol evidence to contradict written, cannot affect third parties, who are not precluded by recitals in written contracts between others, from showing what was the real transaction. Barreda v. Silsbee, 21 How., 169.</p> <p>2. Idem—License—Revocable—Case at bar.—D. leased to R., for a term of years, the exclusive right to and possession of certain land, to cut and remove the lumber. After R. had for several years been engaged in carrying out the lease, he agreed in writing to sell to B. (who was aware of R.’s rights), the lumber standing on the land. B. proceeded to cut and remove the same. R. enjoined B., who was unable to pay damages. By parol, it appeared that D.’s contract with B. was restricted to “ down and refuse timber,” and that D. had revoked it: held, R. was not precluded from using parol evidence to show the true contract between D. and B. And the agreement for D. to sell to B. the standing timber was a mere license, and revocable at D.’s volition.</p>