Fisher Machine Works Co. v. Singletary

Citations

• 104 Kan. 460
• 179 P. 328
• 1919 Kan. LEXIS 289

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Sale — Ice Plant — Indefinite Written Contract — Parol Evidence — Fraudulent Representations. A proposal by plaintiff to sell an ice plant, which was signed by the defendants, is held to be so indefinite and ambiguous that it cannot be regarded as a complete contract, and hence in an action thereon parol evidence may be received, not to contradict the writing, but to show the complete agreement, including any fraudulent representations made and the inducing causes to the making of the agreement.</p> <p>2. Same — Pleadings—Issue of Fraud. Under the pleadings herein the question of fraud was in issue and evidence thereon was admissible.</p> <p>3. Same — Trial — Reopened for Further Testimony — Admissions — Judicial Discretion. After the parties announced that they had rested, the court allowed the case to be reopened and further testimony to be introduced in respect to the value of the ice plant. Plaintiff objected upon the ground that their witnesses upon that subject had left the court, and their evidence to meet that of the defendants was not then available. Defendants then stated that they would concede that plaintiff’s absent witnesses, if present, would testify that the property was of the full value claimed by the plaintiff. Held, that there was no abuse of discretion shown in the ruling reopening the case.</p> <p>4. Trial — Instructions. Certain challenged instructions of the court examined, and held to be without prejudicial error, and also that the refusal of one requested instruction afforded no ground for reversal. „</p> <p>5. Same — Evidence—Verdict. Evidence examined and held to be sufficient to support the verdict of the jury.</p>