Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-01-28
COURT DECISIONS.
DIcEsTED BY w. 3. MARTIN.
Exclusively for vlrgin:an- Pllot)
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
QUIN v. SEXTON.

Supreme Court OF North Carolina.
December 49,. 1899.
THOUGH A NOTE is UNDER SEAL.
IT IS NOT VARIED OR CONTRA
DICTEB By PARQL EVIDENCE
THAT 1T WAS NOT TO BE PAID
UNTIL THE COLLECTION OF A
CERTAIN OTHER NOTE GIVEN
TO THE MAKER
This was an action on a note made
by defendant to plaintiff and under
seal. The defendant alleged that moth
ing was owing to the plaintiff when the
note was given. but that there was an
unders standing between the plaintiff ana
defendant that this note was to be paid
from the proceeds of n certain note for
the purchase money Of some land sold
by them to a third party, and which
they then sold, and that the note of de-
PENDANT was not to be paid until this
other note was collected, which had
never been done, as its maker was in
solvent. The plaintiff was non-suited
and appealed.
The court says:
1t cannot be disputed but what the
matter testified to by the defendant as
to what the contract was between him
and the plaintiff. had 1t been reduced
to writing as a part of the contract,
either as n condition in the note or as
defeasance in another paper, would
have constituted good defense to the
plaintiffs action. The only question,
then, is, is this parol evidence compe
tent? and this question depends upon
the fact as to whether It varies or con-
tradieta- the note sued en- The plain
tiff contends that 1t does; that the note
states that defendant owes the plaintiff
s1.640; that the note is under SEAL which
imports n consideration. and this can
not be contradicted by defendant. We
agree with the plaintiff in these con-
tentions that note under,seal imports
n considera ton, and none need be
shown. We also agree with the plain
tiff that the defend------- add to
CIR contradict n written instrument (thc
note) by parol evidence. This seems
to be established law in this State, and,
as we agree with the plaintiff in this
contention. we cite no authority to sup
port proposition so we'll established as
this seems to be. But the defendant
contends that his evidence does not
change or contradict the note sued on;
that he does not deny the note; but he
says that 1t did not contain the con-
tract between him and the plaintiff
that he has testified to. nor was 1t in
tended by the parties that 1t should do
so: that there is no statute requiring
that said contract should be in writ
Ing, and. as no part thereof was re-
duccd to writing, there Is no legal reas,
on why he may not testify to the
same. While we agree with the plain.
tiff that written contract cannot be
added to or contradcted by parol evil
dcncc. we also agree with the defend
ant that the contract which his uncon-
tradicted testimony establishes, if be-
lieved is different contract from that
contained In the note sued on. Accord
ing to the terms of this contract, the
note sued on was not to be paid until
the purchase money for the land sold to
Kelly was paid. and the uncontradicted
testimony of the defendant Is that not
dollar of that money has ever been
paid. and not dollar will ever be paid.
This doctrine seems to be we'll sustain
ed, If not settled law. in this State. At
flrmed.