Tuley v. Barton

Citations

• 79 Va. 387
• 1884 Va. LEXIS 94

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence—Parol—General Rule.—As a general rule, contemporaneous parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument.</p> <p>2. Idem—Exceptions.—But parol evidence is admissible to show additional independent facts contemporaneously agreed upon and not inconsistent with or contradictory of-the contract so far as reduced to writing. Brent v. Richards, 2 Gratt. 542.</p> <p>3. Idem—Idem—Receipts.—Receipts are either mere admissions of payments or delivery, or they may contain a contract to do something in relation to the thing delivered. So far as they are mere admissions of delivery, they are only prima facie, and may be contradicted by parol testimony. But so far as they are evidence of a contract, they stand on the footing of other written contracts.</p> <p>4. Idem—Receipts—Liability of Attorney or Transferee.—Attorney’s receipt for claims for collection may be so far added to by parol testimony as to show a contemporaneous additional contract on the part of attorney to receive the claims as collateral security for debts due him from client. But the liability of attorney or transferee is only for the exercise of due diligence to collect those claims; and in neither capacity is he responsible for their loss, unless such loss, be occasioned by his negligence.</p>