Case ID: ohio-law-abs_1/html/0767-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ALIREAD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 783
    LINCOLN v. TATUM
    Ohio Appeals, 2nd District, Franklin County
    No. 1106.
    Decided Oct. 11, 1923
    107. CONTRACTS.
    (1) Printed portions of contracts will control where there is inconsistency between the printed and written provisions — (2) Where the written provisions simply explain the printed portion then the provis-ons will be construed together.
    Attorneys — H. B. Garch and J. F. Rogers, for jincoln; Eugene Moore and Andrew Mitchell, for Tatum.
   ALIREAD, J.

Epitomized Opinion

This was an action brought by Lincoln to recover the sum of $1,000 deposited with Tatum under a written contract. A written proposition was made by the owner of certain real estate to Tatum as gent. Tatum sold premises to one Lincoln, who ieposited $l,0i00 with the agent. The written ontraet provided for a payment of $1,000 upon the igning of the agreement. The printed acceptance, owever, provided that $1,000 was to be paid to the gent, Tatum, in trust. At the close of plaintiff’s evidence the court direetel a verdict for defendant, pon the ground that the trust proposition was not linding as the original contract required the pay-nent of $1,000 to the vendor. In reversing the ¡udgment of the lower court, the Court of Appeals eld:

1. Where there is an irreconcilable inconsistency otween the printed and written portions of a con-n-act, the written portions will be allowed to pre-ail.

2. Where the written portion of a contract does lot provide to whom the $1,000 cash payment was to ie made, the printed portions specifically setting orth the person to whom payment is to be made hould be given full force and effect.