Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ames v. Southern Pacific Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided January 21, 1904No. S.F. No. 2612Published

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco granting a new trial. John Hunt, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1DissentShaw, J.

—I dissent. I take it that no proposition is more fully settled than this, that parol evidence cannot be admitted or used to vary or contradict the effect of a written contract. In this state this rule has the express force of statute law. ‘ ‘ The execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or not, supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument.” (Civ. Code, sec. 1625.) “When a contract is reduced to writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Burns v. Sennett & MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Bradford Investment Co. v. JoostCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Cashman v. HarrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Ah Tong v. Earle Fruit Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Dexter v. OhlanderSupreme Court of Alabama · 1889

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

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

Powered by the Exa API