 | 1898 - 1198 Seiten
...law which they recognize carefully stated; but the conclusion is that, 'as a general rule, it [parol evidence] is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written Instrument.' Again, in Barnhart v. Riddle, 29 Pa. St. 96, this language Is used: 'Where parties have deliberately... | |
 | James Bradley Thayer - 1898 - 680 Seiten
...possibly, of one of the parties, is rejected. 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.' '' 2 9 Allen, 412. That the validity of the contract is not tonched by statutes... | |
 | Abraham Clark Freeman - 1898 - 1022 Seiten
...it; and evidence that such condition has not been complied with does not violate the rule that j>arol evidence Is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a •written Instrument. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS— INVALIDITY OF, WHKKM CONDITION HAS NOT BEEN I'ERFORMED.-If a persuu de.iverg... | |
 | Washington (State). Supreme Court, Eugene Glenroy Kreider - 1898 - 786 Seiten
...law which they recognize carefully stated, but the conclusion is that, 'As a general rule, it (parol evidence) is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written instrument.' Again, in Bernhart v. Riddle, 29 id. 96, this language is used: * Where parties have deliberately put... | |
 | Virginia. Supreme Court of Appeals - 1898 - 824 Seiten
...parol evidence in such a case. There is certainly no better settled general rule of law than that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written contract. There is another general rule, which has been VOL. ix.— 10 established and recoguized by... | |
 | David Shephard Garland, James Cockcroft, Lucius Polk McGehee, Charles Porterfield - 1898 - 1208 Seiten
...struck out as the word introduced.* h. ADMISSIBILITY OF PAROL EVIDENCE. — The general rule that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written contract is equally as applicable to charter-parties as to other kinds of contracts.5 1. Rule when... | |
 | 1899 - 932 Seiten
...comaker, and that it had not been so executed. Is competent, and does not fall within the rule that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written instrument. McCormlck Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Faulkner, 7 SU 303. And a defendant sued upon a paper purportIng... | |
 | Colorado. Supreme Court - 1900 - 990 Seiten
...contemporaneous evidence in the absence of an averment of fraud or mistake in their execution. The rule that "parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument," which is invoked in support of this proposition, is not applicable. The... | |
 | Hawaii. Supreme Court - 1900 - 496 Seiten
...was accepted or not, and that evidence of the oral statement would be inadmissible, under the rule that parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument. It is obvious that that rule has no application to such a case. What the... | |
 | 1900 - 304 Seiten
...meant by the burden of proof? Upon whom does it rest in the trial of case? 9. It is a familiar rule that "parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument." What reason or reasons can you give for the establishment of such a rule?... | |
| |
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. 
