Case Name: Eubanks v. Gulley
Court: Appellate Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1932-07-26
Citations: 94 Ind. App. 650
Docket Number: No. 14,354
Parties: Eubanks v. Gulley.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 94
Pages: 650–651

Head Matter:
Eubanks v. Gulley.
[No. 14,354.
Filed July 26, 1932.]
Charles A. Lowe and Robert E. Kistner, of counsel, for appellant.
Crawford A. Peters, for appellees, below.

Opinion:
Kime, J.
This was an action by appellees to recover upon an alleged parol contract for the sale of tobacco. The appellees attempted to introduce a written contract and upon the court's rejection the substance thereof was proven orally. The court found for appellees and rendered judgment accordingly. Appellant's motion for a new trial being overruled, he brings this appeal, assigning that ruling as error. The reasons assigned in the motion for a new trial are: The decision is contrary to law — the decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and, error in allowing proof of the contents of a written instrument by parol and the use of such parol testimony to support an allegation in the complaint of a parol contract.
There is no brief on behalf of appellees.
The appellant has shown prima facie reversible error in the introduction of evidence of a written contract by parol, and in the absence of a showing that the written contract was lost, destroyed or unobtainable, the judgment of the Dearborn Circuit Court must be reversed and it is so ordered.