This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1902 edition. Excerpt: ... given concerning the sa1ne. The plaintiff had fallen into an ice-pit belonging to defendants while doing work for them, and he claimed that the accident was caused by their negligence in leaving the trap-door of said ice-pit open, and hence that they were liable for the damages sustained by him. This was the only claim which he had against them, and this is the sole basis upon which his declaration is founded. The receipt in question expressly covers and includes all such damages; it is not apparent from an inspection thereof that it does not embrace the entire contract, and we think it is clear that the plaintiff is thereby barred from maintaining any action which otherwise might be founded on the accident aforesaid. That an ordinary receipt, given on payment of a sum of money, is only prima facie evidence of the fact recited and may therefore be explained or contradicted by parol is doubtless the law. Goodzrin v. Good-u'z7n, 59 N. H. 550. Such a paper does not constitute a contract or agreement in writing between the parties, but is only the written acknowledgment of the payment of money without containing any aflirmative obligation upon either party to it. In other words, it is a mere admission of a fact in writing. 2 Beach Con. 383; Ryan v. V'ard, 48 N. Y. p. 208; Krulz v. Craig, 53 Ind. 574; 2 Bouv. Law Dict., title "Receipt;" Raymond v. Roberts, 2 Aikens (Vt.), Rep. 204. See also Smith v. Ballou, 1 R. I. 496. VVhere, however, an agreement is embodied in the receipt, then, in so far as the receipt contains an agreement, it cannot be varied or controlled by parol evidence, and hence is not open to explanation unless for uncertainty or ambiguity in its terms. In other words, it stands on the same footing in this...