Case Name: Stanley Klonowski, etc., v. Franciszek Monczewski
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924-01-29
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 99
Docket Number: No. 17887
Parties: Stanley Klonowski, etc., v. Franciszek Monczewski.
Judges: Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 99–100

Head Matter:
No. 17887
Stanley Klonowski, etc., v. Franciszek Monczewski.
Error to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County.
297. CONTRACTS — A rceeipt which embodies a new obligation and purports to set out how the money received is to be used, held to be a written contract though signed by one party only, and his custody thereof tends to establish assent to its terms — Where plaintiff sets up an oral contract which he claims defendant violated, and it is admitted by latter’s answer to have been entered into, and evidence thereof submitted -without objection, held cannot be varied by parol.

Opinion:
MATTHIAS, J.
1. A writing in the form of a receipt, but which embodies a new obligation and purports to set out the purpose for which the money therein referred to is received, and the manner in which it is to be used, may con-sttute a written contract between the parties, though signed by one only, and the fact that a party not signing takes the same into his possession, control and custody tends to establish his assent to ts terms.
2. But where an issue is made by a claim upon the part of the plaintiff that an oral contract is entered into between the plaintiff and defendant, setting forth the terms thereof and the particulars in which he claims it was violated by defendant, the defendant by answer admitting that such oral contract was entered into by the parties but denying the terms therof as alleged by plaintiff, and upon trial of the issue, evidence is submitted by the parties without objection, to sustain their respective contentions, the defendant cannot thereafter raise the question that a certain instrument in writing, signed by him and delivered to the plaintiff, embraced the contract between the parties and cannot be enlarged, contradicted or explained by parol.
Judgment affirmed.
Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.