Mathis v. Madsen

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that where the meaning of an agreement is “ambiguous or uncertain, the Court may consider other contemporaneous writings concerning the same subject matter, and may, if it is still uncertain, consider parol evidence of the parties’ intention”
• noting that general agents or executive officers of corporations need only show oral authorization to satisfy the statute of frauds' agent authorization requirement
• declaring that courts must first determine meaning from language used in document, and “consider other contemporaneous writings concerning the same subject matter” only if that language is first found ambiguous or uncertain
• “Actual possession ... when open, visible, and exclusive, will put upon inquiry those acquiring any title to or a lien upon the land so occupied to ascertain the nature of the rights the occupants really have in the premises.” (quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).