Case Name: LINCOLN v. TATUM
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-10-11
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 797
Docket Number: No. 1106
Parties: LINCOLN v. TATUM
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 797–798

Head Matter:
No. 818
LINCOLN v. TATUM
Ohio Appeals, 2d District, Franklin County
No. 1106.
Decided Oct. 11, 1923
107. CONTRACTS.
Written portions of contracts will control where there is inconsistency between the printed and written provisions — Where the written provisions simply explain the printed portion then the provisions will be construed together.
(This ease reprinted to correct error)

Opinion:
ALLREAD, 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 agent, Tatum sold premises to one Lincoln, who deposited $1,000 with the agent. The written contract provided for a payment of $.1,000 upon the signing of the agreement. The printed acceptance, however, provided that $1)000 was to be paid to the agent, Tatum, in trust. At the close of plaintiff's evidence the court directed a verdict for defendant, upon the ground that the trust proposition was not binding as the original contract required the payment of $1,000 to the vendor. In reversing the judgment of the lower court, the Court of Appeals held:
Attorneys — H. B. Garch and J. F. Rogers, for Lincoln; Eugene Moore and Andrew Mitchell, for Tatum.
1. Where there is an irreconcilable inconsistency between the printed and written portions of a contract, the written portions will be allowed to prevail.
2. Where the. written portion of a contract does not provide to whom the $1,000 cash payment was to be made, the printed portions specifically setting forth the person to whom payment is to be made should be given full force and effect.