Winters v. Schmitz

Citations

• 36 Pa. Super. 496
• 1908 Pa. Super. LEXIS 195

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Written and farol contract — Evidence—Question for fury— Fraud.</p> <p>When matters of fact, depending on oral testimony, are connected with and necessary to a proper understanding of written evidence, the court is not bound to consider and give effect to the latter as though it stood alone; an admixture of oral and written evidence draws the whole to the jury.</p> <p>When an instrument has been obtained for one purpose and an attempt is made to use it for a different and unfair purpose, parol evidence is admissible to establish the contemporaneous agreement as to the purpose for which it was to be used. Nor is it essential to the admission of parol evidence that a fraud was originally intended. It is enough that, though the parties acted in mutual good faith at the inception of the transaction, an attempt is made to wrest the instrument to a purpose not contemplated, or use it in violation of the accompanying agreement.</p> <p>Contract — Building contract — Price—Evidence—Expert testimony.</p> <p>In an action to recover on a building contract where the plaintiff claims twice the amount which the defendant alleged was the contract price, the defendant may prove by competent experts that the amount claimed by the plaintiff was more than twice what would be a fair and liberal price for the work; but the jury may use this testimony only as corroboration of the defendant’s testimony as to the price agreed upon, and for no other purpose.</p>