The evidence was properly excluded, because in direct contradiction of the terms of the writing. Walker v. Venters, 148 N. C., 388; Basnight v. Jobbing Co., 148 N. C., 350.
No error.
Copeland v. Howard, 172 N.C. 842 (1916)
Oct. 11, 1916
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
172 N.C. 842
A. S. COPELAND et al. v. F. M. HOWARD.
(Filed 11 October, 1916.)
Contracts, Written — Parol Evidence.
Parol evidence that at the 'time of the execution of a promissory note the parties agreed that the due date would be at a different time from that therein stated is inadmissible, as varying the terms of the writing.
Appeal from Bond, J., at April Term, 1916, of LeNOIr.
This is an action upon a note executed by the defendant and payable on 1 January, 1915.
The defendant offered to prove that at the time of the execution of the note an agreement was entered into between him and the plaintiff that the note should not be paid until two years from its date. This evidence was excluded, and the defendant excepted.
There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant excepted and appealed.
Loftin, Dawson & Manning and G. M. Allen for plaintiffs.
T. G. Wooten and Joe Dawson for defendant.