In House v. Low, decided in 1807, the Supreme Court held that parol evidence was admissible to show that a receipt was conditional, and that it might be explained by parol evidence.
Summary of this case from Komp v. RaymondNo. 05-10703.
October 2, 2006.
Certiorari Denied.
Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.
In House v. Low, decided in 1807, the Supreme Court held that parol evidence was admissible to show that a receipt was conditional, and that it might be explained by parol evidence.
Summary of this case from Komp v. RaymondFull title:Low v. HOUSE, JUDGE, CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSOURI, ST. CHARLES COUNTY, ET AL
Court:U.S.
Date published: Oct 2, 2006
A mere receipt, however, is always open to explanation by parol. Southwick v. Hayden, 7 Cow. 334; M'Crea v.…
Komp v. RaymondHence, it must be regarded as a receipt only and not as a contract. That such a receipt, being an informal…