Case Name: Wymond Shaw versus William B. Shaw
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1863
Citations: 50 Me. 94
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wymond Shaw versus William B. Shaw.
Judges: Cutting, Davis, Walton and Barrows, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 94–95

Head Matter:
Wymond Shaw versus William B. Shaw.
Parol evidence is inadmissible to prove that a promissory note was intended as a receipt for money put into the defendant’s hands, by the payee, to be loaned for him. .
It seems now well settled that parol evidence of an oral agreement, made at the time of malting or indorsing a note, cannot be permitted to vary or contradict the terms of the written contract.
Reported from Nisi Prius, Rice, J., presiding.
This was an action of assumpsit on the promissory note, of the defendant to the plaintiff, dated February 7, 1856, for $780, on-demand with interest.
The defendant offered evidence to prove that the note in suit was given as a receipt for money which plaintiff let the defendant have, to be loaned by him for the plaintiff’s benefit, in such manner as the defendant might consider most advantageous to the plaintiff; that he loaned it for plaintiff, using great care to loan it safely and well, but the parties to whom the money was loaned, failed, and no part of it has been repaid; that the plaintiff knew and approved of the parties to whom the loan was made; that the defendant was acting as the agent of the plaintiff in loaning the money, without any pecuniary benefit to himself.
This evidence was objected to as inadmissible, and the presiding Judge so held. The defendant consented to be defaulted, subject to the opinion of the full Court upon the question of exclusion of the evidence offered.
Danforth, for the plaintiff.
Whitmore, 2d, for the defendant.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Aitleton, C. J.
The evidence offered was at variance with the terms of the note in suit. In Billings v. Billings, 10 Cush., 178, parol evidence was held inadmissible to show that a promissory note, in the usual form, was intended as a receipt, and that the sum for which the note was given, was in fact a payment by the payee to the maker, of an antecedent debt, and not a loan or advancement. So, in an action on a note payable absolutely, evidence is not admissible to prove an oral agreement, when the note was made, that it should be given up in an event which has happened. Tower v. Richardson, 6 Allen, 351; Currier v. Hale, 8 Allen, 47. Indeed, the law seems well settled that parol evidence of an oral agreement, made at the time of the making or indorsing á note, cannot be permitted to vary or contradict, to add to, or subtract from the terms of the written contract. Underwood v. Simonds, 12 Met., 275 ; Woodbridge v. Spooner, 3 B. & A., 233; St. Louis Perpetual Ins. Co. v. Homer, 9 Met., 39 ; Hoyt v. French, 4 Foster, 198.
Default to stand.
Cutting, Davis, Walton and Barrows, JJ., concurred.