Staley v. John B. Thomas & Son

Yellott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant instituted an action in the Circuit Court for Frederick County against the appellees; the plaintiff claiming damages for the alleged infraction of a parol contract. In his declaration the plaintiff avers that the defendants, who constituted a firm for the sale of real estate, had entered into a verbal agreement with him in relation to the purchase of a farm belonging to one Shields, and located in said county. By the .terms of this agreement the price to he paid for the property was $2,140; and in consideration of the payment by the plaintiff of $200 in cash, and $800 on the first of April next ensuing, the defendants were to loan the residue of the purchase money on a mortgage on said farm.

The plaintiff further avers in his declaration that he paid the $200, in accordance with the stipulation in said agreement, and was ready and willing to pay $800 on the first of April, but that the defendants declined to furnish the money on mortgage in conformity with the obligations imposed on them by the terms of said parol contract. The verdict and judgment were for the defendant and there are six bills of exception in this record. The first exception is founded on the rejection of evidence in relation to the payment of the sum of $800 mentioned in the declaration. The averment is that this sum was to he ⁴⁴¹ paid in cash on the first of April, 1885.

The plaintiff offered to prove, not that this sum had been paid on the first day of April, 1885, in accordance with the terms of the parol contract sued on, but that he had given Shields ■a bill of sale on his personal property as security for the payment. He alleges in his declaration that, by the terms of the contract, he was under an obligation to pay the money on the first of April, 1885, and he offered to prove that he did not pay the money in accordance with said ■obligation but had given security that he would pay it at some future time. Here it is clear that the allegata was not supported by the probata. The evidence was not pertinent to the issue presented by the pleadings and the ■Court properly rejected it.

Clark vs. State, 8 Gill & J., 111. The plaintiff offered to prove that at no time did the •defendants make any objection to the non-payment in cash of the sum of $800 by the plaintiff. The Court refused to admit this testimony and this ruling forms the foundation for the second bill of exception. It is manifest that the fact that the defendants made