Leonard v. Miner

California Supreme Court Mar 25, 1898 No. L. A. No. 321Published

Before: Searls

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that parol evidence of a contemporary oral agreement is inadmissible to contradict or vary the absolute terms of a written promissory note, and that the trial court erred in admitting such evidence to negate the defendant's knowledge of his personal liability.

Issues

Whether parol evidence of an oral agreement is admissible to contradict the terms of a written promissory note.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of an oral understanding to determine the defendant's intent to defraud creditors.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is a thoroughly well-settled principle of evidence that a written contract cannot be contradicted or varied by evidence of an oral agreement entered into by the parties before or at the time of making such a contract”

“the admission of evidence tending to show an understanding on his part at variance with the plain tenor and effect of the notes, and the refusal to strike out like evidence, was error.”

Synopsis

Insolvency—Peohissoby Note—Evidence.—In an action by a payee of a promissory note, to set aside a conveyance executed by one of the makers thereof, on the ground that such conveyance was made while he was insolvent and with the intent to defraud his creditors, evidence is inadmissible on behalf of such maker of any oral agreement entered into before or at the time of the execution of the note whereby his liability thereon was limited or conditioned.

SEARLS, C. This action was brought April 22, 1895, by F. A. Leonard, assignee of the estate of F. A. Miner, an insolvent debtor, to set aside a conveyance from said F. A. Miner, insolvent, to Etta B. Miner, his wife, of a tract of land situate in the county of San Bernardino, upon the ground that said conveyance was made with the intent to defraud the creditors of said insolvent, F. A. Miner.

E. C. Singletary, a creditor of F. A. Miner, intervened in the action setting up the fraudulent conveyance, and praying that [404]such conveyance be adjudged fraudulent and void as to intervener and other creditors; that a receiver be appointed to take charge of and sell the property, etc. The defendants F. A.. Miner and Etta B. Miner answered.

The action was dismissed as to the plaintiff F. A. Leonard, upon the ground that the alleged fraudulent conveyance was, made more than one month before the filing of the petition in insolvency, and hence that under section 55 of the Insolvent Act of 1880 (Stats. 1880, p. 96) he was not entitled to maintain the action.

A jury was impaneled, and the following special issue submitted for determination, viz: “Was the conveyance mentioned in the pleadings in this case made by F. A. Miner to his wife, Etta B. Miner, made with the intent on the part of said F. A. Miner, at the time of such conveyance, to delay or defraud any creditor of said F. A. Miner?” The answer of the jury was, “No.”

The court approved the finding of the jury, and made other and additional findings, upon which judgment went for the defendants.

Intervenor E. C. Singletary appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The court found that F. A. Miner and A. B. Miner (his father)' on October 2, 1891, made their joint and several promissory note to E. 0. Singletary, the plaintiff in intervention, in the sum of seven thousand dollars, with interest, etc., payable March 17, 1892, which note is due and payable, etc. On the ■ 22d of March, 1892, the same parties made another promissory note to Singletary for one thousand dollars, which is also due and unpaid, with interest, etc.

That on the eleventh day of September, 1893, the defendant F. A. Miner, was the owner of the lot of land described in the complaint in' intervention, and on which there was a mortgage given by said F. A. Miner to Mrs. H. N. Burrall, to secure the sum of fifteen hundred dollars.

Leonard v. Miner

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief