Legal Opinion
Wimberly v. Tanner
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided September 9, 1925No. 16216PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
1. The rule that contemporaneous evidence is generally inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument (Civil Code of 1910, § 5788) is not violated by proof of a new and distinct subsequent agreement in the nature of a novation. Civil Code (1910), § 5794. But the novation, to be valid, must be supported by some new consideration. Civil Code (1910), § 4226; Collier Estate v. Murray, 145 Ga. 851 (1) (90 S. E. 52).
2. Where under a written contract an attorney at law was employed to represent the other contracting party in obtaining satisfaction of a claim for damages…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Davis v. First National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1913
- Willingham Sash & Door Co. v. DrewSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Bearden v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1913
- Collier Estate v. MurraySupreme Court of Georgia · 1916
- Glover v. DimmockSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
3Cited by7 opinions
- Fulenwider v. FulenwiderSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
- P. & O. MacHine Works, Inc. v. PollardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
- Long Tobacco Harvesting Co. v. BrannenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1958
- Moon Motor-Car Co. v. Savannah Motor-Car Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
- Bradbury v. MorrisonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1956
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.