Legal Opinion

Horne & Ponder v. O. B. & E. J. Evans

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided December 7, 1923No. 14890PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.

1. The cardinal rule for the construction of contracts is to ascertain the intention of the parties. If that intention be clear and contravenes no rule of law, and sufficient words be used to arrive at the intention, it should be enforced, irrespective of all technical or arbitrary rules of construction. Civil Code (1910), § 4266. Parol evidence is inadmissible to add to, take from, or vary a written contract. All the attendant and surrounding circumstances may be proved, and if there is an ambiguity, latent or patent, it may be explained; so if a part of a contract only is reduced to writing…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Arnold v. Empire Mutual Annuity & Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
  2. Stoddard Manufacturing Co. v. AdamsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  3. National Refrigerator & Butchers Supply Co. v. ParmaleeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1911
  4. Martin v. MonroeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1899
  5. Clegg-Ray Co v. Indiana Scale & Truck Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1906

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Cassville-White Associates, Ltd. v. Bartow Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
  2. Manning v. WillsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1941
  3. Loewenherz v. WeilCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
  4. Cocke v. Bank of DawsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1935
  5. Manry v. HendricksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1941

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API