Evidence, Extrinsic affecting writing.
In an action of contract to recover rent, oral evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a written instrument executed by the parties as follows: "We hereby agree to pay . . . [the plaintiff] 1000.00 for key of store, . . . — $200.00 on account and 100.00 up delivery of key. Delivery of key on or before March 20, 1922."
Upon evidence tending to show that the $1,000 named in the instrument above described was to be paid as a bonus to obtain possession of the premises and the lease held by the plaintiff and that the defendant agreed that, if the plaintiff would pay to the lessor the rent for a certain month, he, the defendant, upon taking possession on the eighth of that month, would reimburse the plaintiff for the amount of twenty-one days' rent, a verdict for the plaintiff was warranted.
RUGG, C.J.
This is an action of contract to recover rent. It was undisputed that the parties were in negotiation for the purchase by the defendant of a lease of a store held by the plaintiff. The report states that the parties "executed a written instrument as follows: — 'We hereby agree to pay N. Sudhalter 1000.00 for key of store 2129 Washington Street, — $200.00 on account and 100.00 up delivery of key. Delivery of key on or before March 20, 1922. (Signed) Nathan Sudhalter.'" This instrument, as printed in the record, is signed by the plaintiff and not by the defendant. Assuming, however, that both parties executed the instrument, there was no error in admitting oral evidence as to its meaning. Plainly it was ambiguous and required explanation. Whittier Machine Co. v. Graffam, 156 Mass. 415. Jennings v. Puffer, 203 Mass. 534. Linton v. Noonan, 238 Mass. 31, 40.
The present action is not brought on the written instrument but on an independent and different agreement to pay rent. Durkin v. Cobleigh, 156 Mass. 108. Keith v. Radway, 221 Mass. 515. There was ample evidence to support the finding for the plaintiff. The defendant's requests for rulings, so far as not granted, were denied rightly.
Order dismissing report affirmed.