Kelly v. Crawford

Mr. D. C. Nichols, for Kelly & Co., plaintiffs in error: 1. The contract without the schedule was incomplete–a contract with its most important part omitted–and did not tend to show the case between the parties. Their rights, under the contract, depended upon the accounts assigned. The accounts were to be put into speedy collection. The first count of the plaintiffs' declaration alleges that this was done. If more was collected than Quigg should award, the plaintiffs were to pay the balance to the defendants below; if less, the defendants below were to make up the deficiency. The contract without the schedule had no certain meaning.1 The absence of the schedule made a patent ambiguity which cannot be supplied by parol evidence.2