Legal Opinion
Jewell v. Norrell
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided October 1, 1941No. 29143PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMacIntyre, J.
“Parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible generally to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument.” (Italics ours.) Code, § 38-501. “Parol evidence shall be admissible to show that the writing was either originally void [not valid] or subsequently became so.” (Brackets ours.) Code, § 38-503. “All contemporaneous writings shall be admissible to explain each other; and parol evidence shall be admissible to explain all ambiguities, both latent and patent.” Code, § 38-502. “Receipts for money are always only prima facie evidence of payment, and may be denied or explained by…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Chicago Building & Manufacturing Co. v. ButlerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1913
- Branan v. LeeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
- Ramsey-Fender Motor Co. v. ChapmanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1932
- Citizens Bank v. HallSupreme Court of Georgia · 1934
- Marietta Savings Bank v. JanesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1881
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Owens v. Service Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1954
- Eastern Motor Co. v. LavenderCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1943
- Crow v. BowersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1949
- McWane Cast Iron Pipe Co. v. BarrettCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1945