 | Iowa. Supreme Court - 1901 - 894 Seiten
...understand counsel, there is no dispute as to the law applicable to this case. Appellee cites the rule that "parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument," and contends that parol evidence is inadmissible to establish an agreement... | |
 | Colorado. Supreme Court - 1901 - 750 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... | |
 | 1901 - 1006 Seiten
...contract There can be no doubt that the rule as expressed In 1 Greenl. Ev. § 275, Is well settled, that "parol, contemporaneous evidence is Inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument," though, as will be seen by the succeeding sections, this rule is subject... | |
 | 1902 - 552 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 Penn. St., 96, this language is used : "Where parties have deliberately... | |
 | J. C. Wells, Edward Warren Hines, Frank L. Wells, Horace C. Brannin, William Cromwell, William Jefferson Chinn, Walter G. Chapman, William Pope Duvall Bush, Finlay Ferguson Bush, R. G. Higdon, Thomas Robert.. McBeath - 1904 - 1272 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." So far as I am aware no court of last resort (except in this case) has ever... | |
 | Arizona. Supreme Court - 1904 - 534 Seiten
...v. Kimball, 91 US 294. The rule, in the language of Greenleaf, is: "The rule, briefly expressed, is, parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument." 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, 351. The rule is elementary, and we think it applies... | |
 | William Reynolds Vance - 1904 - 748 Seiten
...by parol testimony grows out of the well-known parol evidence rule, thus stated by Mr. Greenleaf:10 "Parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument." It is plain that the effect of proving a waiver is, in one sense, to alter... | |
 | Pennsylvania. Supreme Court, Sylvester Baker Sadler - 1904 - 690 Seiten
...463. See also Stine v. Sherk, 1 Watte & S. 195, and Miller v. Smith, 33 Pa. 386. As a general rule, it is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written instrument Martin v. Berens, 67 Pa. 463 ; Hain v. Kalbach, 14 Serg. & R. 159, 16 Am. Dec. 484; Barnhart v. Riddle,... | |
 | Colorado. Court of Appeals - 1900 - 674 Seiten
...which the plaintiffs were induced to make the agreement, were fraudulent. Now, it is no better settled that parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument than it is that parol evidence is admissible to show that the execution of... | |
| |
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. 
