Thompson v. Davenport
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Benton Chancery Court; Ben F. Mc-Mahan, Chancellor; The contract was a written contract complete on its face, and it was not competent to vary or contradict it or establish an additional contract by oral testimony.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Benton Chancery Court; Ben F. Mc-Mahan, Chancellor; The contract was a written contract complete on its face, and it was not competent to vary or contradict it or establish an additional contract by oral testimony. The written contract was not uncertain but certain and complete. 9 Cyc. 251; 91 Fed. 232; 96 Ark. 184. Parol testimony was not admissible to vary, qualify or contradict the written contract, as there was no uncertainty or ambiguity. 113 Ark. 509. 1. The cross-complaint and answer and set-off put in issue the question raised by appellant, and it is immaterial whether the…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
Appellant owned and operated a meat market in Bentonville, Arkansas, and sold out to appellee for an agreed price to be paid in the delivery of an automobile, a mule and five cows, and the balance to be evidenced by promissory notes. At the time of the sale there was a writing executed by the parties, as follows:
“Bentonville, Arkansas, 4-15, 1919.
“We, the undersigned, ........................, S. 0. Thompson, party of the first, does agree with the parties of the second part to trade his City Meat Market, slaughter house and slaughter ground for $3,000, and payable in the following manner:
One…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Izard v. Connecticut Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
3Cited by1 opinion
- Leahy v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922