Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

113 Kan. 271

Neiswender v. Bolen

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided April 7, 1923

Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1923-04-07

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1923-04-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 1992

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

1019231930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Hopkins, J.:

¶2On August 17, 1920, plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract whereby plaintiff was to sell and deliver to defendant 1,000 bushels of corn, No. 3 or better, at $1.20 per bushel, on track at Tecumseh or Topeka, to be shipped on or before December 31 following. Thereafter it was orally agreed that the com should be delivered at Tecumseh. On December 30 following, the plaintiff tendered 1,000 bushels of corn to the defendant on track at Tecumseh, which the defendant refused to accept.

¶3In a trial to the court the plaintiff recovered judgment for $660, that amount being the difference between- the market price of the corn on that day and the price agreed upon between the parties. Defendant appeals. His contention was that the corn tendered at Tecumseh was not grown on plaintiff’s land, and that the corn which he contracted to purchase was that growing on plaintiff’s farm when he made the contract.

¶4Written confirmation of the sale, signed by the defendant, discloses no stipulation that the corn purchased by defendant was growing on plaintiff’s farm, or that plaintiff should deliver corn growing upon his farm. Testimony that the corn purchased by defendant was growing or was to be grown on plaintiff’s farm would have varied the written contract, and therefore was not *272admissible, and, if admitted, was properly not considered by the court.

¶5In the case of Hopkins v. Woldert Grocery Co. [Tex.] 66 S. W. 63, it was held that where the defendant agreed in writing to deliver a certain quantity of pecans at a specified place, time and price, parol evidence that such pecans were to be grown in certain territory would add to the contract and was therefore inadmissible.

¶6The evidence in this case abundantly supports the judgment. No reversible error being shown, the judgment is affirmed.

/113/kan/271 · .json · Public domain