Kime v. Tobyhanna Creek Ice Co.

Citations

• 240 Pa. 61
• 87 A. 278
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 631

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Parol contracts — Sealed instrument — Extension by parol — Measure of proof — Pleading and practice. '</p> <p>1. The word parol is used to distinguish contracts which are made verbally or in writing not under seal, from those which are .under seal.</p> <p>2. An agreement under seal may be extended by paroj, and the evidence necessary to prove such parol- extension need not be clear, precise and indubitable, nor must there be two witnesses or one witness and corroborating circumstances, as in the case of reforming a written instrument.</p> <p>3. Where in such case, however, the pleadings clearly show that the plaintiff relied upon a renewal in writing endorsed upon the back of a sealed instrument, he cannot at the trial attempt to rely upon a subsequent oral renewal, there being no indication in his pleadings that any such renewal had been made.</p> <p>Contracts — Action for breach — Breach by plaintiff.</p> <p>4. Where plaintiff sued defendant to recover damages for breach of a contract to sell and deliver ice, and it appeared by the terms of the written instrument that the defendant might cancel the same at any time if plaintiff should become in arrears in his payments, and it was shown by evidence which was uncontradicted that the plaintiff had become in arrears and there was nothing to show any waiver of the agreement in this regard, the parties were bound by their covenant, and the action of the lower court in entering judgment for defendant n. o. v. was correct.</p>