D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Stringham

Citations

• 4 S.D. 593
• 57 N.W. 776
• 1894 S.D. LEXIS 17

Syllabus

<p>1. The plaintiff entered into a written agreement with one of the defendants, by virtue of which the latter became the agent of the former for the sale of certain farm machinery, and other property of that nature. The contract provided that it could not he changed in any manner except by the written agreement of plaintiff’s manager, but was silent as to the price at which certain bundle carriers and flax attachments mentioned therein were to be sold. Held, that it was competent to prove that a subsequent parol agreement was made through the same ag’ent that made the original contract, by the terms of which the defendant above named was authorized to furnish a bundle carrier and flax attachment free of charge to each purchaser of.'a’binder, with the understanding that such article so furnished would jnot be charged to the account of said defendant. v</p> <p>2. A decision of this court upon a former appeal, and upon a state of facts substantially similar, will not ordinarily be reveised, and should he regarded as the law of the case so far as applicable.</p> <p>3. A receipt is not usually conclusive’as -between the immediate parties, and is not within the rule whichjexcludes parol evidence to vary the terms of a written instrument; and, where the purposes of the receipt are expressed in short and seemingly incomplete terms, parol evidence is admissible to explain the nature of the transaction.</p> <p>4. The issuance of a receipt upon taking a promissory note in settlement of an existing debt, or as evidence of a loan, is unusual, and generally unnecessary; and in case such receipt is ambiguous and uncertain, and it becomes necessary to construe it in order to determine the rights of the parties, the language of the instrument should bo interpreted most strongly against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the court.</p>