Manry v. Selph

While we recognize the rule that parol evidence is inadmissible generally to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument (Code, § 38-501), and that “An entirely different contract from that evidenced by a writing can not be pleaded or proved by parol as a substitute for that embodied in such writing” (Feingold v. McDonald Mortgage & Realty Co., 166 Ga. 838, 145 S. E. 90), and that a novation, to be valid, must be supported by some new consideration (Code, § 20-115; Garvin v. Worthington Pump & Machinery Corp., 62 Ga. App. 240, 8 S. E. 2d, 589; Alexander Film Co. v. Brittain, 63…