Court Opinion

ID: 5318688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-08 04:22:06.724343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:18.492422
License: Public Domain

McAvoy, J.
(dissenting). The evidence excluded would have supported the defendant’s contention that the notes sued on were not to be delivered to the payee until certain stock was delivered *526to the maker. This would have established a condition subsequent upon which the notes would become effective although their tenor was for immediate payment. Thus their plain intendment would be defeated by parole. This may not be done. I find the evidence was properly ruled out at trial.
The judgment should be affirmed.
Merrell, J., concurs.
Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.