Legal Opinion

Johnson v. Mutual Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided September 3, 1969No. 44595, 44596PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Felton, Chief Judge.

“The validity of a parol contract is not affected by the fact that the same parties entered into a separate contemporaneous written contract, unless the former tends to contradict or vary the terms of the latter.” Brinson v. Franklin, 177 Ga. 727 (1) (171 SE 287); S. & S. Builders v. Equitable Inv. Corp., 219 Ga. 557, 560 (134 SE2d 777) and cit. “[P]arol evidence is admissible to prove the remaining provisions of a contract when the written instrument does not purport to contain all the stipulations of the contract. [Citations.]” S. & S. Builders, supra, p. 562. The…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. S. & S. Builders, Inc. v. Equitable Investment Corp.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1964
  2. Spier v. LambdinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1872
  3. Brinson v. FranklinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Mutual Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1971

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

Powered by the Exa API