Brief for appellees motion picture patents company and Edison manufacturing company (1913)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

47 In Amer. & Eng. Enc. of Law, vol. 14, page 199, is the following: "The fact that the contract has been reduced to writing or that there are written warranties is no ground for excluding parol evidence that one of the parties was induced to enter into the same by falsa and fiaudulent misrepresentations of the other, though the writing is silent on the subject to which the representation i elate, for it is a well settled exception to the general rule excluding parol evidence to vary or add to a written contract, that such evidence n)ay be received for the purpose of showing fraud." In Amer. & Eng. Enc. of Law, vol. 21, page 1099, is the following: " A written instrument valid on its face may also be assailed on the ground of fraud or imposition practiced on one of the contracting paities, and in such case the court will hear evidence of the whole transaction." That the rule is the same when a contract is under seal, especially in a suit pending ir) equity, see 14 Amer. & Eng. Enc. of Law, p. 199; Hartshorn vs. Day, 19 How., U. S., 211, 222; Escherick vs. Traver, 65 111., 379, 381; Moriell vs. Colden, 13 Johns., 395. The same rule applies even though there be a statement in the written contract that theie had been no oral representations. In 14 Amer. & Eng. Enc. of Law, page 200, is the following: " Parol evidence of false or fraudulent representations inducing one to enter into a written contract is admissible notwithstanding the contract contains an express recital that there had been no representations or that all oral representations shall be inoperative." Id Universal, etc., vs. Skinnev, 64 Hun, 293, 295, 297, is the following: " Whether upon the trial proof will sustain the avertnents is one question, but the demurreradmits