EVIDENCE-PAROL EVIDENCE RULE-ADMISSION OF PAROL EVIDENCE TO SHOW CONTRACT WAS SHAM

Authors

Frank E. Roberts S.Ed., University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

Plaintiffs, executors, brought a bill in equity for an accounting on a contract between defendant and one Broder, deceased, dated April 27, 1944, as modified by a writing dated July 24, 1944. In support of a motion to dismiss, defendant offered parol evidence to show that the writing dated July 24, 1944 was actually executed December 31, 1944 and was not intended to bind the parties, but was designed to effectuate a scheme by which certain advancements to be made to Broder for services rendered in 1945 would be treated as salary paid to Broder during 1944 for purposes of defendant's income tax return. The entire arrangement was made conditional upon approval by defendant's tax lawyer. Broder died before the tax lawyer had an opportunity to approve the scheme. The trial court admitted the parol evidence and granted defendant's motion to dismiss the bill. On appeal, held, affirmed. Parol evidence was admissible to show that the writing dated July 24, 1944 was executed and delivered conditionally. Smilow v. Dickerson, (Pa. 1947) 54 A. (2d) 883.

Recommended Citation

Frank E. Roberts S.Ed., EVIDENCE-PAROL EVIDENCE RULE-ADMISSION OF PAROL EVIDENCE TO SHOW CONTRACT WAS SHAM, 46 Mich. L. Rev. 686 (1948).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol46/iss5/15