Fassett v. Caldwell

Action on “I. O. TJ.”—Admissibility of Evidence—Eight to Show Instrument Mere Eeceipt.—In an action on a demand in the form of an “I. O. U.,” where the plaintiff contends that the instrument was given as a guaranty of a certain investment which he was contemplating making and upon which he advanced certain money, which money he asserted was to be regarded as payment on certain stock if he was satisfied to make the investment, otherwise to be returned to him, but defendant contended that the instrument was merely a receipt for the money paid on account of the stock, parol evidence was admissible to show that the instrument was but an acknowledgment of the receipt of the money, and where the evidence showed that plaintiff concluded to make the investment defendant was under no obligation to return the money but was entitled to a cancellation or return of the. “I. 0. IT.”