Teal v. Bilby,
123 U.S. 572 (1887)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Teal v. Bilby, 123 U.S. 572 (1887)

Teal v. Bilby

Argued November 4, 7, 1887

Decided December 5, 1887

123 U.S. 572


The court below acted properly in ordering the consolidation and trial together of an action of replevin and an action in contract, the parties being the same in both, their rights depending upon the same contract, and the testimony in each being pertinent in the other.

It is competent for parties who have contracted in writing with reference to personal property to make a subsequent verbal agreement as a substitute for a part of the written contract.

When testimony is permitted to go to the jury without any objection, tending to show that changes had been made orally in a written contract between the parties, which were substituted by them in the place of the written contract, it is too late to contend that the jury cannot find, in case it is so proved, that the rights of the parties, as defined in the written contract, have been varied by the verbal agreement.

The burden of proof to establish it is on the party who sets up an oral change in a written agreement, and in determining it the reasons and motives for the alleged change may be shown.

In an agreement to keep, feed, and care for a quantity of cattle, it was agreed that the cattle should be of a certain average, of which fact A was to be the judge. Held that A's action in this respect was not conclusive on the defendant if it was shown that he had been deceived by the plaintiff, in not putting him in full possession of knowledge possessed by him, and necessary for the proper discharge of A's duty.

In several other respects, referred to by the Court in detail, it is found that there was no error in the charge of the court below.

Page 123 U. S. 573

The plaintiff below sued out these writs of error. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.