Ricks v. Wofford

Citations

• 31 Tex. 411

Syllabus

<p>Where the plaintiff declared upon an original partnership contract, which he set out in words, and added the averment that it had been so altered as to make it terminate a year sooner than was intended, and the defendant in his answer admitted the facts and terms of partnership, except as to the alteration, the defendant would have been entitled to read the contract without proving its execution; hut, having introduced one of the subscribing witnesses to prove its existence and contents, and offered his own affidavit to prove its destruction by fire, the court rightly excluded the parol evidence.</p> <p>The real issue was as to the alteration of the contract; and, the plaintiff having averred his own possession of it and its destruction, parol evidence of its contents, under the circumstances, was inadmissible.</p>