Case: Field for the use of Oxley, et. al. versus Biddle
Abbreviation: Field ex rel. Oxley v. Biddle
Decision Date: 1792
Docket Number: 
Citation: 2 Dall. 171
Volume: 2
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Parties: Field for the use of Oxley, et. al. versus Biddle.
Judges: 
Pages: 171–173

Head Matter:
Field for the use of Oxley, et. al. versus Biddle.
THIS was an action of debt, on a bond dated the 1st of May 1786; conditioned for the payment of £1000, on or before the 1st. of Nov. ; and the defendant pleaded payment, with leave to give the special matter in evidence. The defence set up on the trial was, that it had been agreed by the parties, that the bond should be void, unless. Oxley & Hancock, merchants residing in England, transmitted a ratification of certain articles of composition within fix months: and the following testimony was given:—
1. The articles of composition, dated the 3d of May 1785, stating, that the plaintiffs have agreed with I. Collins (who was indebted above £5000 sterling, to Oxley & Hancock) that Collins shall pay £1000 to Oxley Of Hancock, provided that this agreement of composition shall not take effect as to a full discharge of Collins, until Oxley Of Hancock shall have transmitted their ratification to America."
2d. A receipt by one of the plaintiffs, for the bond in suit, "being given in consequence of the above agreement” altho dated the 1st of May, 86.
3d. A letter dated 27th Dec. 1786, from Field, acknowledging a demand made upon him by Biddle, for the bond in question.
The defendant then offered William Bell as a witness to prove, that at the time the bond was executed, it was agreed that it should be void, if the ratification did not arrive in fix months. The testimony was objected to; but after some argument, the point was referred, and became the subject of discussion at the present Term.
Ingersoll, for the plaintiff
—The intention of the parties must be construed by the bond and the indenture. The attempt is now made to explain away or vary a written agreement; to shew that to be conditional, which the writing imports to be absolute. Bac. Elem. 90. 4 Bl. Com. 483. 9. No parol averment varying the condition of a bond, shall be admitted as a plea. Cows 47. 1 Esp. 247. The exceptions do not reach this case; they may be reduced to three general heads. 1 To rebut an equity. 2 To ascertain a person or tiling which cannot be ascertained by the writing itself. 3 When a clause is left out by fraud or mistake. The case in 3 Atk. 77. was of a circumstance which could not take place in the writing. Ib. 388 was a suggestion of fraud and is referred to in 2 Bl. Rep. 1241. 1 Vez. 457. was a mistake rectified by the minutes. The rule is always adhered to, unless there is fraud. The drawer of the articles there did not pursue the intent of the minutes. 2 Vez. 375. Evidence is never admitted to contradict a written agreement; but a subsequent agreement may. The case of Harvey v. Harvey, referred to in Fitz. 240, was that of a deed made to save an estate from sequestration, and this could not be inserted. But without such foundation it would not be admissible; Pow. on Powers, Intr. p. 14. The following cases shew that the exceptions are those only which are stated above. 1 Dall. 575. 8 Co. 155. 2 Atk. 239. A blank left in a will, and no parol evidence admitted. 2 Atk. 383. Ib. 373. Declarations made at the execution of a will refused. 1 P. Wins. 3. The rule is laid down. 5 Bac. 362. 2 Vern. 98. 1 Brown. Ch. 93. 94. Pow. on Cont. 432. Dall. Rep. 83.

Opinion:
But,
by the Court:
—The principle of the case has, often been determined. The greatest injustice would prevail if such testimony were rejected.