 | New Jersey. Court of Chancery - 1868 - 624 Seiten
...and is to be administered by her executor, as portion of her residuary estate. Parol cotemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument. 1 Greerd. on Ev., § 275. There is no material difference of principle, in the rules of interpretation,... | |
 | Great Britain. Courts, Frederick Augustus Carrington, Joshua Ryland Marshman - 1843 - 750 Seiten
...intending to intimate that I entertain a doubtful opinion upon this question. I think that the principle, that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written contract, does not apply where the object of that evidence, (e) Pcake, Add. Ca. 93. In that... | |
 | William Oldnall Russell - 1843 - 1190 Seiten
...is for the purpose of avoiding the contract on the ground of fraud." " I think that the principle, that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written contract, does not apply where the object of that evidence, as in this case, is to impeach... | |
 | Arkansas. Supreme Court - 1877 - 810 Seiten
...refusing to exclude from the jury the oral testimony in relation to the sale of the goods ? The rule that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written instrument is necessarily confined in its applications to the parties to it, or those claiming... | |
 | Florida. Supreme Court - 1887 - 562 Seiten
...Contracts, second edition § 639 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,... | |
 | Georgia. Supreme Court - 1884 - 922 Seiten
...and plaintiffs excepted. We recognize the rule contended for that ordinarily parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument when the contract is plain and unambiguous upon its face. But that is not the question alone made by... | |
 | Georgia. Supreme Court - 1882 - 874 Seiten
...consideration of the notes and deed to establish the usury, and such evidence does not infract the rule that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written contract. Let the judgment be affirmed. Lowe, guardian, vs. Burkett. LOWE, guardian, vs. BURKETT.... | |
 | Georgia. Supreme Court - 1847 - 710 Seiten
...and MALINDA HARGROVE executrix, of ZACHARIAH B. HARGROVE, deceased, defendants in error. In Equity. Parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written agreement. Where the contract is reduced to writing, conversations or stipulations anterior... | |
 | Louisiana. Supreme Court - 1849 - 814 Seiten
...making said acts. It is substantially the same as that of the common law, that parol, contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument ; and the same interpretation appears to have been given to both by the civil and common law courte.... | |
 | 1861 - 758 Seiten
...that exception. No rule of evidence was of greater importance or better established than the rule " that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument." (1) There was only one english case to be found amongst the authorities cited by the respondent's counsel,... | |
| |
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. 
