Legal Opinion
National Manufacture & Stores Corp. v. Dekle
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided February 15, 1934No. 23171PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.
1. “It is rudimentary law that parol evidence can not generally be admitted to contradict or vary the terms of a written contract. . . But if the writing is ambiguous, evidence is admissible to explain the ambiguity. Or if the writing does not purport to contain all the stipulations of the contract, parol evidence is admissible to prove other portions thereof not inconsistent with the writing.” McCommons v. Williams, 131 Ga. 313, 318 (62 S. E. 230); Civil Code (1910), §§ 5788-5791. A contract free from ambiguity is conclusively presumed to express the intention of the parties. Civil Code, §…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Lytle v. Scottish American Mortgage Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Mayor of the City of Brunswick v. Ætna Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
- Foote & Davies Co. v. MalonySupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Sanders & Ables v. CarterSupreme Court of Georgia · 1893
- Lentz v. City Council of AugustaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Salvatori Corp. v. RubinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
- Tynan v. KSTP, INC.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
- Daniels v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1989
- Jones v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1978
- Gibson v. SheriffCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1980
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.