Dorsey v. Clements

The only question in this case is whether the expression in the lease, “timber suitable for turpentine purposes,” is ambiguous. If it is not, parol evidence is not admissible to vary or contradict the terms of the lease. If it is ambiguous, it may be explained by parol on the theory set forth in the petition. Code, §§ 20-704 (1), 20-703, 38-502; Swanson v. Mobley, 33 Ga. App. 791 (127 S. E. 806); Wheelwright & Co. v. Aiken, 92 Ga. 394 (17 S. E. 610); Ford v. Lawson, 133 Ga. 238 (65 S. E. 444). It would seem that, if the word “timber” is not a word of invariable meaning (Pennington v. Avera,…