| Florida. Supreme Court - 1887 - 562 lapas
...2 Evan's Pothier on Obligations, 37. The rule that "parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument," is said to admit of an exception when, in equity, a party seeks a specific performance of an agreement,... | |
| Illinois. Supreme Court - 1852 - 820 lapas
...judgment in proof, is to be tested, it must be set out in the bill of exceptions. McBain v. Enloe, 76. 3. Parol evidence is not admissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written agreement. Abrams v. Pomeroy, 133. 4. The law presumes that an instrument was executed the... | |
| Iowa. Supreme Court - 1872 - 660 lapas
...theory of the law. Appellants' counsel urge that the rule of evidence, " that prior or cotemporaneous parol evidence is not admissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument," was violated by the court below in the admission of the evidence referred to, and in the instructions... | |
| Virginia. Supreme Court of Appeals - 1873 - 1024 lapas
...to the form of the instrument executed by the parties. The rule that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument, is a rule of the common law established by the courts, and founded upon considerations of public. policy... | |
| Florida. Supreme Court - 1887 - 738 lapas
...Phill. Ev., 350; 12 Wend., 573; Byles on Bills, marg. p. 192 and note, (i.) The general rule is, that parol evidence is not admissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written contract which is intelligible in its terms, nor to impose upon it a sense which its terms... | |
| 1879 - 540 lapas
...implied by law from the indorsement. COOPER, J., in deciding the point said: "The general rule that parol evidence is not admissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written instrument, applies to promissory notes, as has been repeatedly held by this court. Campbell... | |
| United States. Supreme Court, Samuel Freeman Miller - 1875 - 756 lapas
...Barn. and Ad. 65; Nelson v. Boynton, 3 Met. 402. Speaking of the exceptions to the general- rule, that parol evidence is not admissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written instrument, Mr. Green leaf says : "Neither is the rule infringed by the admission of oral evidence... | |
| Nathaniel Cleveland Moak - 1875 - 1038 lapas
...expect you on Monday" would be meaningless. Pope, QC , and Hopwood, in support of the rule : Although parol evidence is not admissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written contract, it is always competent to either party to show that that which apparently is the... | |
| |