
    No. 295
    DET. & IRON. RD. CO. v. MURRY, et.
    Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist., Fulton Co.
    No. 87.
    Decided April 11, 1927
    480. EVIDENCE — Although provisions of a written contract cannot be varied by parol evidence, this rule does not exclude evidence relating to the consideration.
    First Publication of this Opinion
    Attorneys — George S. May and Wallace Vis-scher, Napoleon, for Company; Ward & Johnson, Wauseon, for Murry et.
   BY THE COURT.

Clarence Murry and wife sued the Detroit & Ironton Railroad Co. in the Fulton "Common Pleas to recover damages for breach of a contract made by the company, to purchase a strip of land 100 feet wide for a right of way; and recovered judgment for $800.

It was alleged that the real estate sold was and now is of the value of $200. The contract recites a consideration of $1150 and the company sought 1» prove that it was agreed that the greater portion of this amount was to be paid on account of damages accruing to the balance of Murry’s farm by reason of the construction of a railroad across the farm; and that the plan of construction had been abandoned by the Company. The Court of Appeals held:

1. The trial court, in excluding this evidence, was in error.

2. It is fundamental that the provisions of a written contract cannot be varied by parol evidence, but it is equally fundamental that this rule does not exclude evidence relating to the consideration.

3. The application of this rule does not deprive the Murrys of the right to recover whatever damages they actually suffered, directly arising from the breach of contract.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

(Richards, Williams & Lloyd, JJ., concur.)  