Vaugine v. Taylor
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jefferson county in Chancery. That parol proof is not admissible to vary, explain, or contradict a deed, nor can the terms of a deed be varied or explained by parol, where there is no latent ambiguity. Singleton vs. Fore, 7 Miss. 515; Same vs. Price, 5 lb. 101; Davis vs. Davis, lb. 56; 1 Ala. 436; 1' Brevard 166; Falconer vs. Garrison, 1 McCord, 209; McCullock vs. Girard, 4 Wash.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jefferson county in Chancery. That parol proof is not admissible to vary, explain, or contradict a deed, nor can the terms of a deed be varied or explained by parol, where there is no latent ambiguity. Singleton vs. Fore, 7 Miss. 515; Same vs. Price, 5 lb. 101; Davis vs. Davis, lb. 56; 1 Ala. 436; 1' Brevard 166; Falconer vs. Garrison, 1 McCord, 209; McCullock vs. Girard, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 289; Greenleaf chap. é,p. 162; 3 Starkie 1008. Where a contract is reduced to writing all anterior and contemporaneous stipulations and representations are merged in the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hanly
The appellants, complainants below, filed their bill against the appellees, defendants below, in the Circuit Court of Jefferson county, charging, in substance, that they and certain of the defendants, are the sole heirs at law of one Don Joseph Valliere, to whom a large concession or grant of land had been made by the Spanish Government, when that government owned the province of Louisiana. The bill omits to describe the grant, and fails to aver its validity under the Spanish laws, or its recognition or establishment under the government of the United States, since the cession of Louisiana.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- M'Crea v. PurmortCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1836
- Wilkinson v. ScottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1821
- Bowen v. BellNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Harvey v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Virginia · 1822
- Jackson ex dem. Lowell v. ParkhurstNew York Supreme Court · 1830
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- J. H. Magill Lumber Co. v. Lane-White Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Earl v. HarrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- St. Louis & North Arkansas Railroad v. CrandellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Clinton v. EstesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1859
- Lyon v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.