Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

17 Miss. 212

Young v. Jacoway

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1848

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1848-01-15

In error from the circuit court of Kemper county : Hon. Hend-ley S. Bennett, judge. At the April term of the circuit court in the year 1843, Benjamin J. Jacoway instituted an action of assumpsit against Samuel Young, on a promissory note for two thousand dollars, due January 1st, 1843, and bearing interest from date. He plead the general issue, and at the October term, 1843, a verdict and judgment were rendered for Jacoway for ¡$2213 33.

Decided 1848-01-15

Mr. Justice Thacher

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This is a writ of error to Kemper count]/- circuit court.

¶3Jacoway instituted an action of assumpsit upon a promissory note, made by Young payable to plaintiff. Upon the trial, Young introduced in evidence an instrument in writing, which *215was proved to be the contract which constituted the consideration for which the promissory note was made. The instrument was in these words: “ This is to certify, I set over to Samuel Young one fourth of the interest of Ish-te-monte and Ish-pally, settled or located • on section 34, township 21, range 3, west, this the 17th day of May, 1842. Benj. J. Jacoway.” The plaintiff below then sought to show by a witness, that the understanding between the parties to this contract was, that Jacoway passed to Young only the interest which he held in the land without liability or guaranty upon his part; and also, by another witness, the nature of the claim of Jacoway to the land. In this desire he was indulged by the court below against the opposition of the defendant.

¶4In the written contract there is no ambiguity. It purports to assign a portion of the interest of two Indians to a certain tract of land. The evidence went to show an assignment of another person’s interest, and also to limit the extent of that assignment. At law, a contract cannot rest partly in writing and partly in parol, and it is only in equity, as a general rule, that the true intent of a written contract can be shown by parol, when from mistake the contract does not exhibit truly the intention of the parties. The object of the plaintiff was to show that there was a mistake, and an omission in the written contract, and to correct that mistake and supply that omission. Such evidence has been properly held to be inadmissible. Peques v. Mosby et al., 7 S. & M. 340. The instructions of the court having been given with a view to evidence improperly admitted, were, as far as based upon that evidence, erroneous.

¶5The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted by the court below.

/17/miss/212 · .json · Public domain