Case Name: Skinner et al. v. Hendrick
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1791-02
Citations: 1 Root 253
Docket Number: 
Parties: Skinner et al. v. Hendrick.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 253–253

Head Matter:
Skinner et al. v. Hendrick.
Parol evidence not admissible to prove that a specialty delivered to the party, was upon certain parol conditions.
Action of ejectment, for sixteen acres of land. Issue to the jury.
The plaintiff’s title was under a deed given by Elisha Marsh, to one of his sisters. The defendant offered parol evidence to prove that said Elisha delivered said deed to his sister upon certain conditions, which had not been performed; and so said deed was void.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Parol evidence is not admissible, to prove a deed delivered to the party, to be an escrow; or to prove any parol conditions, which would defeat or control its legal effect and operation. Holt's Rept. Bushnel v. Pasmore, 213; Lothrop v. Bulkley, New Haven adjourned Superior Court, December 1172; where a parol condition was plead in bar of a note delivered to the plaintiff, and Babcock v. Steadman, adjudged upon a writ of error, that a parol condition cannot defeat or control a note delivered directly to the promisee.— Windham adjourned Superior Court December term, A. D. 1788.