D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Stringham

Citations

• 1 S.D. 406
• 47 N.W. 408
• 1890 S.D. LEXIS 48

Syllabus

<p>1. The common-law rule that parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument was intended to guard against fraud and injustice by not permitting parties to deny their solemn agreements or overthrow them by the uncertain words and memories of unreliable witnesses, yetitshould not be invoked as a shield to fraud, or be so applied as to work injustice.</p> <p>2. Uncertain written contracts are open to explanation, and parol evidence is admissible to explain ambiguities, late nt or patent.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the court.</p>