Court Opinion

ID: 9826394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:53:24.562834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:02.852165
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Cothran :
I concur in the result. I do not agree with the statement in the leading opinion that the evidence did not tend to show a conditional delivery. On the contrary, I think that it did, but am of opinion that it purported to establish a condition subsequent upon the happening of which an obligation issued as a present valid one should be declared void, and that the offer of such evidence is inhibited by the parol evidence rule. See extended note in 20 A. E. R., particularly at page 427. ' If the evidence had tended to show that the condition was one that must precede the taking effect of the obligation, it would have been admissible under Section 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The authorities cited by the appellant, particu*539larly Brannon on Neg. Inst. Law (3d Ed.), 61, and 8 C. J., 205, sustain this position. In the former it is said:
“Evidence of a contemporaneous oral agreement is admissible as against parties, not holders in due course, to show that the instrument was not to take effect until some condition was performed.”
And in the latter:
“The delivery may be a conditional one to take effect only on the happening of a future contingency, and the agreement in regard thereto need not be in writing.”
Here the evidence shows a complete contract for the sale of the land and a note executed and delivered for the first payment. The contention of the defendant is that, although executed and delivered as a present vital contract, it was to be void in the event that Martin, who had bought the defendant’s land, failed to comply with his contract—a clear case of condition subsequent.