Lynchburg Shoe Co. v. Daniel
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Complaint; from city court of Morgan—W. H. Gurr, judge pro has vice. February 18, 1918.
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, J.
1. As between tlie original parties, the consideration of a contract is ordinarily open to inquiry for the purpose of showing either that the consideration was originally illegal, and for this reason the promise so predicated was void, or that the consideration has subsequently failed' in whole or in part, so as no longer to support the promise as made. If such be the real purport and intent of the plea, there results no infringement of the rule which forbids the variance by parol of the expressed terms of a written instrument. It is only when a defendant, under the guise of seeking to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Rheney v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918
- McKee v. Hurst & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1918
- Marchman v. Robertson, Taylor & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1886
3Cited by5 opinions
- Jones v. LawmanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1937
- W. T. Rawleigh Company v. KellyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
- Stewart v. HardinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1919
- Carver v. LeachCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
- Lovett v. GaskinsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1919