Court Opinion

ID: 9809416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:12:49.012471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:11.512589
License: Public Domain

Clarkson, J.,
concurs on the ground that the evidence was admissible to show an agreed mode of payment and discharge other than specified in the bond, and the evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury.
In Evans v. Freeman, 142 N. C., 61 (62-3), the evidence was that, “It was. a part of the agreement at the time the note was given that it should be paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the stock-feeder.” At p. 64, Walker, J., says: “But this rule applies only when the entire *801contract bas been reduced to writing, for if merely a part bas been written, and tbe other part bas been left in parol, it is competent to establish tbe latter part by oral evidence, provided it does not conflict with wbat bas been written.”
In Bank v. Winslow, 193 N. C., 470 (Brogden, J.), tbe note was to be paid from tbe sale of peanuts. In Justice v. Coxe, 198 N. C., 263 (266), (Connor, J.) : “Tbe contract, which defendant alleged in bis answer was entered into by and between him and tbe plaintiff contemporaneously with tbe execution of tbe notes, was, in effect, that defendant should be discharged of liability upon bis conveyance of tbe land to George W. Knight, Edward Higgins, and Samuel Puleston, and upon their assumption of tbe notes.” Stockton v. Lenoir Co., 201 N. C., 88; Stack v. Stack, 203 N. C., 498. Wilson v. Allsbrook, 203 N. C., 498 (Stacy, C. J.), tbe note “was to be paid from rents collected by tbe defendant.” In Kindler v. Trust Co., 204 N. C., 198 (201), citing numerous authorities, Adams, J., says: “In proper cases it may be shown by parol evidence that an obligation was to be assumed only upon a certain contingency, or that payment should be made out of a particular fund or otherwise discharged in a certain way, or that specified credits should be allowed.”
In Trust Co. v. Wilder, 206 N. C., 124 (125), we find: “Liberally construed, tbe defendants allege that they executed tbe notes as trustees for tbe plaintiff, receiving no consideration, and with tbe agreement that tbe notes were to be paid out of tbe proceeds of tbe sale of land. These allegations invoke tbe principles applied in Evans v. Freeman, supra, et al.” Galloway v. Thrash, 207 N. C., 165; Bank v. Rosenstein, 207 N. C., 529.