Case ID: pa-super_2/html/0590-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Orlady, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward Wolf, Isaac Wolf, Jr., Augustus Wolf, and Frank Wolf, trading as Wolf & Company, v. Miriam H. Wolf, Appellant.
    
      Evidence — Parol agreement to contradict a promissory note.
    
    In all the cases sustaining exceptions to the rule which excludes parol evidence to contradict or vary a written contract, no case goes to the length of ruling that such evidence is admissible to change the promise itself, without proof or even allegation of fraud or mistake.
    Evidence of an alleged oral agreement that a promissory note was to be renewed at maturity if it proved inconvenient for the maker to pay the same is inadmissible.
    Argued Oct. 15, 1896.
    November 9, 1896:
    Appeal, No. 121, Nov. T., 1896, by-defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phil a. Co., June T., 1896, No. 652, making absolute the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
    Before Rice, P. J., Willard, Wickham, Beaver, Reeder, Orlady and Smith, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Reeder, J., dissents.
    Assumpsit on a promissory note.
    
      Error assigned was making absolute the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
    
      Julius C. Levi, for appellant.
    
      Clinton O. Mayer, with him Joseph L. Greenwald, for appellee.
   Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

The opinion filed in Wolf & Company v. M. P. Rosenbach disposes of this case.

The affidavit filed is substantially the same. The defense is the same oral agreement, without allegation that there was any fraud, accident or mistake in the making of the note, or that it induced its execution. The cases must go together. The assignment of error is not sustained and the judgment is affirmed.

Reeder, J., dissents.