 | New Jersey. Court of Chancery - 1868 - 624 sider
...and is to be administered by her executor, as portion of her residuary estate. Parol cotemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument. 1 Greerd. on Ev., § 275. There is no material difference of principle, in the rules of interpretation,... | |
 | Florida. Supreme Court - 1887 - 562 sider
...Story on Contracts, second edition § 639 2 Evan's Pothier on Obligations, 37. The rule that "parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict...or vary the terms of a valid written instrument," is said to admit of an exception when, in equity, a party seeks a specific performance of an agreement,... | |
 | Georgia. Supreme Court - 1884 - 922 sider
...court overruled, and plaintiffs excepted. We recognize the rule contended for that ordinarily parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument when the contract is plain and unambiguous upon its face. But that is not the question alone made by... | |
 | Louisiana. Supreme Court - 1849 - 814 sider
...at the time of making said acts. It is substantially the same as that of the common law, that parol, contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument ; and the same interpretation appears to have been given to both by the civil and common law courte.... | |
 | Michigan. Supreme Court, Randolph Manning, George C. Gibbs, Thomas McIntyre Cooley, Elijah W. Meddaugh, William Jennison, Hovey K. Clarke, Hoyt Post, Henry Allen Chaney, William Dudley Fuller, John Adams Brooks, Marquis B. Eaton, Herschel Bouton Lazell, James M. Reasoner, Richard W. Cooper - 1886 - 744 sider
...of the circumstances under which they are made, and this is no infringement of the rule that parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written instrument. Showing the circumstances under which the contract is made, and the subject-matter... | |
 | 1861 - 758 sider
...exception. No rule of evidence was of greater importance or better established than the rule " that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument." (1) There was only one english case to be found amongst the authorities cited by the respondent's counsel,... | |
 | Oregon. Supreme Court, William Wallace Thayer, Joseph Gardner Wilson, Thomas Benton Odeneal, Julius Augustus Stratton, William Henry Holmes, Reuben S. Strahan, George Henry Burnett, Robert Graves Morrow, James W. Crawford, Frank A. Turner, Bellinger, Charles Byron - 1862 - 466 sider
...presents the main question in the case. There is no principle of law better established, than that parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument. (1 Greenleaf Eo. 275.) It is not that an unwritten contract is less binding upon parties to it, in... | |
 | Nathan Howard (Jr.) - 1866 - 656 sider
...agreement relating to that subject ought therefore to have been admitted. The general rule that " parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument " does not apply in cases where the original contract was verbal and entire, and a part only of it... | |
 | Simon Greenleaf - 1866 - 756 sider
...one of the parties, is rejected.2 In other words, as the rule is now more briefly expressed, " parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible, to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument."8 i Dig. lib. 20, tit. 1,1. 4; Id. lib. 22, Civil Law, — Contra scriptum testiraonitit... | |
 | Francis Hilliard - 1867 - 664 sider
...conveyancet. 8. Loss of writings. 6. In case of ttase. 15. As to application of writings. § 1. "PAROL contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument;"1 though it may be read by the light of surrounding circumstances, to understand the intent... | |
| |
In other words, as the rule is now more briefly expressed, "parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument. 
