Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

57 Miss. 615

Meyer v. Casey

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1880

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1880-04-15

Hon. B. F. Trimble, Judge. The plaintiffs in error, under their firm name of Meyer, Weis & Co., brought this action of replevin against the defendant in error and .Jacob Ostroffsky. Twenty bales of cotton, seized by the sheriff, were retained by Casey, who claimed them.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1981

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-04-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Campbell, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The consideration of the bill of sale of the cotton wholly failed as to Casey. The written instrument recites a consideration, and it is claimed that it is not allowable to contradict the writing in this respect. The rule of exclusion does not apply evidence of failure of consideration. It is not admissible to vary by parol the terms of a valid written instrument. If it has a valid existence, it must stand as the sole expositor of the terms of the contract it evidences; but it is allowable to show by parol that the writing never had validity, or, that having had a legal existence, it has for some reason ceased to be operative. The distinction between sealed and unsealed instruments, as to the right to impeach the consideration, does not exist in this State.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/57/miss/615 · .json · Public domain