 | Abraham Lansing - 1872 - 648 Seiten
...construction. The rule under which the evidence of extrinsic circumstances was excluded, that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written contract, "it is to be remembered, is directed only against the admission of any other evidence of... | |
 | Francis Hilliard - 1873 - 852 Seiten
...to conrryancct. 8. Lou of writings. 5. In case of hate. 15. As to applicat,on of writings. § 1. " PAROL contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument ; " l though it may be read by the light of surrounding circumstances, to... | |
 | Henry Nichols Blake, Montana. Supreme Court, Cornelius Hedges (Reporter), Horace Riverside Buck (Reporter), Fletcher Maddox (Reporter) - 1873 - 760 Seiten
...completed, is rejected, because it would tend to substitute an oral for a written contract. In other words, parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument. 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 275 ; 2 Phil. on Ev., § 350 ; 2 Stark, on Ev., § 544.... | |
 | Thomas Foster Withrow, Edward Holcomb Stiles - 1874 - 616 Seiten
...evidence to explain and apply them. Collins v. Vundevcr, admr., 1 Iowa, 573. (2) When inadmissible. 173. Parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument. This rule is especially directed against the admission of any other evidence... | |
 | District of Columbia. Supreme Court (1863-1936), Arthur MacArthur - 1877 - 660 Seiten
...contradict or vary the terms of the written contract, to wit, the note sued on, the general rule being that " parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument." 1 Green. Ev., sec. 275, et seq. Phillips on Evi., vol.2, lays down this... | |
 | Michigan. Supreme Court, Samuel Townsend Douglass - 1878 - 598 Seiten
...testimony of Ives was competent evidence and was improperly withdrawn from the jury. The rule is admitted that parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument ; but it applies only to instruments admitted to be valid, or which have had... | |
 | Iowa. Supreme Court - 1879 - 778 Seiten
...different from what the bond upon its face imports. This certainly would violate the rule that " pnrol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument." True, the contract which it is sought to inject into the bond is in writing,... | |
 | 1904 - 1038 Seiten
...imply absolute verity. Shankland v. Washington, 5 Pet. 390, 8 L. Ed. 166. It is a fundamental rule that parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument, unless in cases where contracts are vitiated by fraud or mutual mistake,... | |
 | 1885 - 1902 Seiten
...291; Hunt v. White, 24 Tex. 643. The rule on the subject under consideration has been thus stated: "Parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument." Adams v. Wordlcy, 1 Mees. & W. 370, 380 ; liuorman v. Jenkins, 12 Wend.... | |
 | Nevada. Supreme Court - 1880 - 512 Seiten
...not claim anything under it. (Hedges v. Boioen et al., 83 Ills. 161.) II. The general rule that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written instrument, applies only to parties to the instrument and those claiming under them. (Smith v. Moynihan, 44 Cal.... | |
| |
In other words, as the rule is now more briefly expressed, "parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument. 
