Shearer v. Pringle

The plaintiff contends that the court erred in admitting testimony varying the terms of the extension agreement and in rendering judgment decreeing a reformation of said instrument and dismissing the complaint as to defendant Pringle.

As will appear from the statement of facts, there was no dispute as to the material facts upon which reformation was decreed. As we view this case, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the question as to whether the parol-evidence rule in connection with the written instrument was violated. It is our opinion that the facts in this case bring it very clearly within…