Ohio Fuel Gas Co. v. Ringler
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
LEMERT, PJ
' With reference to the first claimed ground of error, the contract in evidence shows plainly as to who was to lay and construct the pipe line necessary to connect the “Sprott Well” to the gas line of the plaintiff in error, The Ohio Fuel Gas Company. The question presents itself as'To whether or not the parol evidence rule was in this ease violated. An examination of the record discloses that the evidence admitted in no way attempts to vary or- change the terms of Paragraph 2 of ¿he written contract, but it shows merely that the Gas Company voluntarily constructed the “hook up”,,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. WilsonOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
- Nunn v. DavidsonOhio Court of Appeals · 1937