Whether the passage referred to, be correct or rot, I conceive the evidence offered cannot be received; for Holliday bad not any I-.iorle.N-.- oí the contract between the commissioners attd Sheppard, except what he derived from the inspection of the order. If the evidence be good to explain what the parties meant, as between themselves, it cannot be so sw to third persons, who have governed tnemselves by the words weed in the writing.
Commissioners of Greene County v. Holliday's executors, 3 N.C. 384, 2 Hayw. 384 (1806)
Jan. 1806
·
North Carolina Superior Court
3 N.C. 384, 2 Hayw. 384
Commissioners of Greene County versus Holliday’s executors.
npIIE Assembly laid a tax for two years, to be collected, each -®- tax they tar following that in which it was laid. Holliday was appointed sheriff in the first collection year, and received part of the taxes : he was appointed also for the second; but the time of payment of the lax had not arrived. Sheppard, who bad undertaken the erection of the public buildings, applied lor money, and the comnaissioncis drew on the sheriff, directing him to pay to Sheppard the taxes collected or to be collected.— Under this order, Holliday paid the taxes for both years. The commissioneis alledge that the words, tobe collected, referred to the taxes then payable, and not collected, and did not extend to the taxes of the Second year. The counsel for the commissioners cir'.-red to give paid evidence that such was the meaning of the order ; and he relied up.<n Peake’s evidence, page 77, 73, where it is said, an ambiguity, either latent or patent, may be explained by parol, where the the thing which is the subject the writing, would pass without deed ; and that is the present ea-.e; tor a verbal order would have been of as much efficacy as this written one.