Broaddus v. Grout

I respectfully dissent first for the reason that neither the parol evidence rule nor the Statute of Frauds have any applica*404tion in this case; second, for the reason that the majority opinion does not distinguish between “identifying” land in an instrument and “locating” land on the ground; and, third, for the reason that this deed falls within Art. 1292, R.C.S. 1925.

The parol evidence rule bars evidentiary matter offered to vary or contradict the terms of a writing or to add to it when the writing is the complete repository of the agreement. Here the alleged deficiency in the deed is the…