From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Eubanks v. Gulley

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jul 26, 1932
182 N.E. 95 (Ind. Ct. App. 1932)

Opinion

No. 14,354.

Filed July 26, 1932.

EVIDENCE — Parol Proof of Contents of Written Instrument — When Not Allowed. — In the absence of a showing that a written contract was lost, destroyed, or unobtainable, admission of parol evidence as to its contents was reversible error.

From Dearborn Circuit Court; William D. Ricketts, Judge.

Action by Ernest Gulley and another against Marion E. Eubanks. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed. By the court in banc.

Charles A. Lowe and Robert E. Kistner, of counsel, for appellant.

Crawford A. Peters, for appellees, below.


This was an action by appellees to recover upon an alleged parol contract for the sale of tobacco. The appellees attempted to introduce a written contract and upon the court's rejection the substance thereof was proven orally. The court found for appellees and rendered judgment accordingly. Appellant's motion for a new trial being overruled, he brings this appeal, assigning that ruling as error. The reasons assigned in the motion for a new trial are: The decision is contrary to law — the decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and, error in allowing proof of the contents of a written instrument by parol and the use of such parol testimony to support an allegation in the complaint of a parol contract.

There is no brief on behalf of appellees.

The appellant has shown prima facie reversible error in the introduction of evidence of a written contract by parol, and in the absence of a showing that the written contract was 1. lost, destroyed or unobtainable, the judgment of the Dearborn Circuit Court must be reversed and it is so ordered.


Summaries of

Eubanks v. Gulley

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jul 26, 1932
182 N.E. 95 (Ind. Ct. App. 1932)
Case details for

Eubanks v. Gulley

Case Details

Full title:EUBANKS v. GULLEY

Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana

Date published: Jul 26, 1932

Citations

182 N.E. 95 (Ind. Ct. App. 1932)
182 N.E. 95

Citing Cases

Kelsch v. Eldridge

Since the law requires the best evidence unless a necessity is shown for the introduction of secondary…

Burnett v. State

Even had Burnett timely proffered to the trial court the content of the witnesses' testimony he failed to…