Nichols & Shepard Co. v. Swisher

Citations

• 110 Kan. 20
• 202 P. 630
• 1921 Kan. LEXIS 153

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Sale of Threshing Outfit — Written Contract — Cannot Be Varied by Parol Evidence. The familiar rule, that a written contract is supposed to embody all prior negotiations and agreements and cannot be enlarged, varied or contradicted by parol testimony, is applied to a contract for the purchase of farm machinery.</p> <p>2. Same — Unambiguous Contract — Construction for the Court and Not for the Jury. In an action to recover damages for the failure of the defendant to accept a threshing outfit purchased under a written contract, defense was made on the ground that the contract provided that the machinery was to be shipped from the factory with the feeder attached to ' the separator and with the tender attached to the engine and that these conditions were not complied with. The court, without holding the contract ambiguous and without any evidence of extrinsic facts tending to explain the meaning of any of the terms, submitted the contract to the jury for their construction. Held, that the question was one of law for the court to determine, and under the -facts of the' case it was error to submit the question to the jury.</p> <p>3. Same — Substantial Compliance with Contract by Vendor. It being undisputed that the stacker and self-feeder were in the shipment when it arrived, and could easily have been attached after being removed from the car; that the plaintiff offered to do this provided defendant would pay the freight, as the contract required of him, held, under any construction of the contract, there was a substantial compliance by plaintiff.</p> <p>4. Same — No Meritorious Defense Shown. No meritorious defense was stated in the answer or established by the testimony.</p>