Case ID: stew_2/html/0493-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By THE COURT.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Howard v. Jackson.
    Parol evidence is insufficient to support an action for the purchase money, on a contract for the sale of lands.
    Howard declared in assumpsit against Jackson, in Wilcox Circuit Court, to recover the price of a lot in the town of Cahawba, used as a brick yard, and also a quantity of unburnt bricks, sold by him to Jackson. To sustain the action, the plaintiff introduced the evidence of one W. W. Garyj who testified that he had heard the defendant say he had bought the lot and brick yard, which then had about 4,000 brick in it, for which he agreed to give 60,000 brick in payment; that Jackson had occupied the yard after tha purchase, and had delivered 6,000 in part payment, to Howard’s order; and that brick were worth $10 per thousand, &c. The Court instructed the jury that on this evidence the plaintiff could not recover, because parol evidence was inadmissible to establish the contract as to the land; and that as to the raw brick, the amount was not within the jurisdiction of the Court. The jury found for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted, and assigns this instruction for error.
    H. G-. Perry, for the plaintiff in error.
    Thorington, contra.
    
    
      
       Statute of frauds, Laws of Ala. p.244 Rinaldi v. •Rives. 1 Stew. Rep. 174.
    
   By THE COURT.

We' are of opinion that the instructions given by the presiding Judge were correct, for the reasons given, and that the judgment must be affirmed, in this opinion we are unanimous.