Court Opinion

ID: 9445651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:35:28.054166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:21.832573
License: Public Domain

BARNES, Circuit Judge
(concurring) .
I concur in the opinion, but desire to add to it two short comments.
First: I do not overlook in the transcript a passing reference made by counsel for appellant at the time of the hearing before the referee to the effect that a refund “has been received and is in the possession of the Trustee in bankruptcy and he has refused to pay it over.” This statement, in the absence of evidence or stipulation, does not prove the fact; nor can this Court accept it as a fact established by the record.
Second: Judge Mathews’ opinion states that the assignment is prospective only, and that Charles cannot prevail. I agree. But I would meet the further point urged on the appeal — that the referee erred in refusing to consider parol evidence as to. the true intent of the parties. The referee committed no error, because the language of the document needs no interpretation. The instrument is an integrated writing, and the parol evidence rule applies. Had the referee permitted the oral testimony to vary the clear terms of an integrated document, he would then have committed error.