Legal Opinion

Knight v. Causby

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided November 17, 1942No. 29773PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

1. The construction of a written contract or any particular clause therein is for the court, except when the contract is ambiguous. In the latter event parol testimony is admissible to ascertain the intention of the parties. Where a second contract has its inception in a previous one, and neither is mentioned in the other, but from the provisions of both it is doubtful whether the second is in full satisfaction of the first, it is proper to admit parol testimony to ascertain whether it was the intention of the parties to execute and accept the second contract in full satisfaction of the first.

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Eberhart v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1873
  2. Carter v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1876
  3. Tarbutton v. DugganCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1932
  4. Kirk v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1884
  5. Executors of Riggins v. BrownSupreme Court of Georgia · 1852

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Taylor Freezer Sales Co. v. HydrickCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
  2. Hanson v. SternCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1960
  3. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. VickersCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1944
  4. Budd Land Company, Ltd. v. K & R Realty CompanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
  5. Walker v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1944

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

Powered by the Exa API