Wooldridge v. Royer

Irving, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellants declared on the following note: “September 1st, 1884. “On or before the first day of September, 1885, I promise to pay to the order of R. A. Wooldridge & Co. one hundred and forty T°o°¥ dollars at 64 Buchanan's wharf, Baltimore, Md., value received. Negotiable and payable -without defalcation or discount. It is agreed that the fertilizer which is the consideration of this note is bought without any guarrantee on the part of the importers or their agents as to results from its use." Signed, “ Conrad Royer.'' In addition to the count setting out this note the narr. contained counts for goods bargained and sold, and the general money counts.

The defendant pleaded never promised as alleged, payment and limitations. But the case was tried on the note. The plaintiffs having proved the execution and delivery of the note rested their case, and the defendant ¹¹⁵ then testified cm. his own behalf, that Festus Griffith, the agent of the plaintiffs, approached him at his farm after wheat harvest in 1884, and offered to sell him Orchilla guano for use in his fall seeding, and that he refused to buy as he was using a mixture which was .satisfactory, and he did not desire to change. To this refusal Griffith, the agent, replied that he would “warrant it to produce as good crops as any other manipulated fertilizer that can be bought on the market lor the same price and if it does not do so, you need not pay for the same,” and that with this understanding the appellee agreed to take five tons on crop time—twelve months, and that in about a week’s time after the delivery of the fertilizer he came to.Rock-ville and signed the note.

He also testified that the fertilizer did not prove equal to the mixture he had been using and did use again, in the same fall, with the Orchilla, side by side in the same field and same cultivation. The plaintiffs objected to the question to which this evidence was responsive, and to the evidence elicited, but the Court overruled the objection and admitted the evidence. We think the Court ‘erred in this ruling. All negotiations and conversations touching this sale were merged in the writing by which the contract was finally completed.

King vs. Clogg, 40 Md., 341 ; Bladen vs. Wells and Wife, 30 Md., 577 ; Penniman vs. Winner, 54 Md., 127 ; Dance, Ex’r vs. Dance, et al., 56 Md., 433 ; Delamater vs. Chappell, 48 Md., 248 . If the evidence had been offered to set up an outside and supplemental agreement independent of the agreement in writing, and