Legal Opinion
Huber v. Vereen
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided April 10, 1925No. 15841PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.
1. “Custom or usage, while admissible to explain an ambiguous written agreement, is inadmissible if repugnant to or inconsistent with a clear, express agreement.” Stamey v. Western Union Tel. Co., 92 Ga. 613, 616 (18 S. E. 1008, 1010, 44 Am. St. Rep. 95); Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Broach, 137 Ga. 602 (73 S. E. 1063); Park v. Piedmont Life Ins. Co., 48 Ga. 601, 606; Albany Ry. Co. v. Merchants Bank, 137 Ga. 391 (4), 397 (73 S. E. 637); Parcel Delivery Co. v. American Oil Pump Co., 25 Ga. App. 659 (1) (104 S. E. 27); Brunswig v. East Point Milling Co., 11 Ga. App. 9 (2) (74 S. E. 448); 17…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Case Threshing Machine Co. v. BroachSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
- Park & Iverson v. Piedmont & Arlington Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1873
- Stamey v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1894
- Albany & Northern Railway Co. v. Merchants & Farmers BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
- Tennille Banking Co. v. WardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Brown v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1936