Case Name: Campbell against M'Clenachan
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1820-09-19
Citations: 6 Serg. & Rawle 171
Docket Number: 
Parties: Campbell against M‘Clenachan.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 6
Pages: 171–172

Head Matter:
Campbell against M‘Clenachan.
Tuesday, September 19.
, Paro1 evi" uence may be given of what ately before ^®;®^011 instrument, where & verbai promise the other to execute the instrument.
In Error.
IT appeared from the record of this cause, on the rerr , turn of a writ of error to Westmoreland county, that it was an action on the case, on a parol contract, by which the fendant, Mathew MlClenachan, promised the plaintiff, WilHam Campbell, to permit him to take as much timber from land purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff, as be sufficient to build a boat to go down the Ohio. On the ° trial of the cause, articles of agreement in writing were given in evidence, by which the plaintiff sold certain to the defendant. The plaintiff then offered to prove, by the .... . . . oath of the subscribing witnesses to the agreement, that while John Gamble, one of the subscribing witnesses, was drawing the articles, the plaintiff told him that he was to have permission to take from the land timber sufficient for a boat, at any time when it might be convenient; and that this should be inserted in the articles ; to which, Gamble au~ swered, that as the writing was nearly finished, it could not conveniently be inserted, but it would answer the same purp°se, if the defendant would make a verbal promise that the plaintiff should have the timber; and that, to this the defendant assented,.and promised, both before and after the signing of the articles, that the plaintiff should have timber for a boat.
This evidence was rejected by the Court,- on which, the plaintiff’s counsel took a bill of exceptions.
Baldwin, for the plaintiff in error,
contended, that it was the settled law of Pennsylvania to admit parol evidence of what passed at the execution of a written instrument, under such circumstances as existed in this case, and relied on Christ v. Diffenbach.
Alexander, for the defendant in error,
cited Schemerhorn V. Vanderheyden. Maigley v. Hauer. Shepherd v. Lit tie. Lessee of Snyder v. Snyder. Boyd v. Stone.
1 Serg. & Rawle, 464.
1 Johns. 139.
7 Johns. 341.
14 Johns. 211.
6 Binn. 483.
11 Mass. Rep, 348.

Opinion:
Tilghman C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court, (after stating the facts.)
This point has been frequently decided by this Court. Parol evidence may be given of what passed between the parties, at, and immediately before the execution of a writing, in a case like the present, where the plaintiff was induced to execute the articles of agreement by the defendant's promise to let him have the timber. To refuse performance of the verbal promise, after having made use of it to get the plaintiff's signature to the agreement, is a trick, of which the law will not permit the defendant to avail himself. It is therefore the opinion of the Court, that the evidence ought to have been received. The judgment is to be reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.
Judgment reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.