Rhodes v. Owens
Citations
- 101 Wash. 324
- 172 P. 241
- 1918 Wash. LEXIS 823
Syllabus
<p>Evidence—-To Vary Writing—Exchange of Property—Contemporaneous Oral Agreement. In the absence of fraud or mistake, it is inadmissible to vary the terms of a written 'contract for the exchange of properties, calling for the execution of a note and mortgage as part of the consideration, by evidence of a contemporaneous oral agreement that the note' and mortgage were merely given in exchange for or in lieu of another obligation which the holder of the note was obligated to pay, and which he had not done, and that the consideration failed on that account.</p> <p>Fraud—Evidence—Sufficiency. In an action upon a promissory note given in an exchange of properties, a counterclaim for fraud in misrepresenting the water rights appurtenant to the lands received by defendants is properly disallowed, where it appears that defendants made their own personal inspection and fully informed themselves through investigation and the advice of a lawyer as to the water rights appurtenant to the land.</p>
Judges: Mount
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.