Case Name: EDWARDS v. RICHARDS
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1834-05
Citations: 1 Wright 596
Docket Number: 
Parties: EDWARDS v. RICHARDS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 616–617

Head Matter:
EDWARDS v. RICHARDS.
Covenant to pay money for another thing — the thing must first be performed or tendered — written contract — latent ambiguity.
Where there is a promise to pay money for a patent right to make and vend patented articles, the holder of the patent must have a title himself, and assign the right or tender it before he can sue for the pay for it.
597] *Whcn a contract is reduced to writing, it is supposed to embody the-agreement and put an end to the parol negotiations of the parties.
A written contract is not to be explained by parol, except as to some latent, ambiguity.
Covenant on a contract to deliver a patent for the exclusive right to make and vend buckets, &c., in certain counties. The declaration avers the offer to deliver the patent, and a refusal, and assigns for the breach the non-payment of the money. The defence was, the plaintiff did not deliver or offer a transfer of the patent according, to the contract.
Strait, for the plaintiff,
offered a bundle of papers as the transfers tendered, under the contract.
King took sundry exceptions to their sufficiency,
and cited 6 Cranch, 324.
N. Wright on the same side.
Strait then offered parol evidence that the parties understood the extent of the plaintiff’s right,
and expressly contracted in reference to it.
King objected.

Opinion:
LANE, J.
The assignment offered to Edwards is limited to making up the entire work and vending here, or the preparation of the parts for exportation to be made up in foreign countries. The contract is to convey an absolute right, without any limitation. He has'shown no title in himself to convey according to his contract, and unless he shows such, must fail; for the defendant was not bound to part with his money, unless he got what by the contract he was to receive for it.
LANE, J. The parol negotiations and understandings of the parties were put an end to when the contract was written, they are supposed to have reduced their agreement to writing, and it cannot now be altered or enlarged by parol, nor explained except in respect of a latent ambiguity. None such is in this case.
The plaintiff then submitted to a nonsuit,'and the jury was discharged.
Strait afterwards moved to open up the non suit and for a new trial, but the motion was overruled.