Legal Opinion
P. & O. MacHine Works, Inc. v. Pollard
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided January 25, 1967No. 42497PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Deen, Judge.
1. While parol evidence, even though admitted without objection, of agreements and stipulations made prior to the execution of the written instrument has no probative value so as to alter or vary its terms (Cleghorn v. Shields, 165 Ga. 362 (141 SE 55)), parol evidence is admissible to prove a new and distinct subsequent agreement (Code § 38-507) or modification of the original agreement (Covington v. Brewer, 101 Ga. App. 724 (115 SE2d 368)), provided it is supported by a consideration. Wimberly v. Tanner, 34 Ga. App. 313 (1) (129 SE 306); Collier Estate v. Murray, 145 Ga. 851 (1)…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Cleghorn v. ShieldsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927
- Collier Estate v. MurraySupreme Court of Georgia · 1916
- Covington v. BrewerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1960
- Long Tobacco Harvesting Co. v. BrannenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1958
- Wimberly v. TannerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
3Cited by9 opinions
- J. E. M. Enterprises, Inc. v. Taco Pronto, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1978
- Giant Peanut & Grain Co. v. Long Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
- Bank Building & Equipment Corp. of America v. Georgia State BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1974
- Houston v. Jefferson Standard Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
- Bank Building & Equipment Corp. of America v. Georgia State BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1974
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.