Court Opinion

ID: 9828364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:19:32.734019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:47.569569
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We have concluded that our construction (of the release pleaded) on the original hearing of this cause, to the effect that it was a release of the plaintiff’s (present) cause of action, is not in line with the majority and weight of authority as declared by other courts.
[3] The language of the release is clearly sufficient to embrace all claims, demands, and causes of action which plaintiff had at that time; and, having concluded upon the first consideration of the case that the instrument was not ambiguous nor had defendant pleaded and proven fraud or mistake, we therefore held that oral testimony was not admissible to explain the intention of the parties, but upon more careful consideration of the proposition, in the light of additional authorities cited by appellee in motion for rehearing, we conclude that the fact that the release in question in its first recital, to wit, “release the Railway Company from the consequences of injury at Abajo,” is followed by the general and sweeping one, “all manner of actions, suits, debts and sums of money » * * whatever in law or equity,” makes it uncertain as to what causes of action were meant, therefore parol evidence in such cases is admissible to establish the intention of the parties at the time; for, if the parties had intended to release all actions, why not mention the others as well as the one at Abajo, N. M.? The trial court therefore properly admitted the testimony and properly submitted the question to the jury. Quebe v. Railway Co., 98 Tex. 6, 81 S. W. 20, 66 L. R. A. 734, 4 Ann. Cas. 545; E. P. & S. E. Ry. Co. v. Darr, 93 S. W. 170; T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Dashiell, 198 U. S. 528, 25 Sup. Ct. 737, 49 L. Ed. 1150; Jackson v. Stackhouse, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 122, 13 Am. Dec. 514; Todd v. Mitchell, 168 Ill. 199, 48 N. E. 35; Bassett v. Lawrence, 193 Ill. 494, 61 N. E. 1098; Jeffreys v. Railway Co., 127 N. C. 377, *26837 S. E. 515; Railway Co. v. Artist, 60 Fed. 365, 9 C. C. A. 14, 23 L. R. A. 581.
The motion for rehearing will therefore be granted, and the judgment of the lower court affirmed.