Legal Opinion

J. Goldman & Co. v. Crank

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 18, 1931PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Tbe principle on which it is uniformly held in this State that parol testimony is not admissible as evidence to contradict or alter tbe terms of a written instrument, in an action between tbe parties to tbe instrument, is well settled. Lytton Mfg. Co. v. House Mfg. Co., 161 N. C., 430, 77 S. E., 233. This principle is applicable in tbe instant case, for tbe plaintiff, although not a party to the bill of sale, is claiming under tbe contract between tbe defendants, Trannie Crank and Susie Crank, and tbe defendant, W. D. Taylor.

It is immaterial that tbe provisions of C. S., 1013, known as tbe…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Lytton Manufacturing Co. v. House Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1913

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Pendergrass v. Card Care, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1993
  2. Chapman v. Belden Corp.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1982

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

Powered by the Exa API