Wallace v. Rogers

Decided October 15, 1822

Superior Court of New Hampshire · decided 1822-10-15

Where A. sold to B. several bags of hops, and gave a bill of parcels, stating th# number of bags, the weight, price, &c.> with these words, tl the… Held: that A, was not precluded by the bill of parcels frora-shewing, that the hops were warranted, only in case they were carried by B. to a particular place. Case for a false warranty of certain hops sold by the defendant to the plaintiff, December 15, 1818. The cause was tried here at October term, 1821rupon the general issue.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 1888

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1822-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By ike court.

¶1It is well settled as a general rule, that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict, add to, or vary the terms of a written instrument.

¶2But to this general rule there are exceptions. 7 Mass. Rep. 297, Barrett vs. Rogers.—2 D. & E. 366, Stratton vs. Rastall.—11 Mass. Rep. 27, Stackpole vs. Arnold.—6 ditto 430, Barker vs. Prentiss.—2 John. 378, House vs. Low.—3 ditto 319, M’Kinstry vs. Pearsall—5 ditto 68, Tobey vs. Barher.—8 ditto 389, Putnam vs. Lewis.—4 ditto 23, Kip vs. Deniston.—9 ditto 310, Johnson vs. Weed.—6 Cranch 318.-1 Strange 674.

(1) 3 Cranch sit, Harris

¶3Arte! a bill of parcels has been decided to be within the •exceptions to the rule ;(1) and we are of opinion, that there -must be, in this case,

¶4Judgment for the defendant.