Garrison v. Kress

1907 OK 141, 91 P. 1130, 19 Okla. 433, 1907 Okla. LEXIS 218
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedSeptember 20, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 1907 OK 141 (Garrison v. Kress) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Garrison v. Kress, 1907 OK 141, 91 P. 1130, 19 Okla. 433, 1907 Okla. LEXIS 218 (Okla. 1907).

Opinion

Opinion of the court by

Irwin, J.:

The sole and only question raised in this case by the brief and argument of plaintiff in error, and the only ground assigned as error for a reversal of this' case, is the action of the court in refusing the evidence as to the oral agreement. We take the proposition to be elementary that all prior and contemporaneous oral argreements as to matters involved in a written contract are merged in the written contract, and that the written contract cannot be changed or varied by such prior and contemporaneous parol agreements. Our statute, in our judgment, conclusively settles this proposition. Section 781, Wilson’s Statutes of Oklahoma 1903, is as follows:

*435 “The execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or -not, supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument.”

The supreme court of this territory, in the case of Deming Investment Company v. Shawnee Fire Insurance Co., 16 Okla. 1, 83 Pac. 918, says:

“A contract in writing, if its terms are free from doubt and ambiguity, must be permitted to speak for itself, and cannot by the courts, at the instance of one of the parties, be altered or contradicted by parol evidence unless in.ease of fraud or mutual mistake of facts.”

The same doctrine is laid down by this court in the case of Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Company v. Richardson Lumber Co., 11 Okla. 585, 69 Pac. 938.

On the strength of this statute and these cases, the decision of the probate court is affirmed, at the costs of the plaintiff in error.

Pancoast and Garber, JJ., absent; all the other Justices concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Seal Oil Co. v. Roberson
1935 OK 995 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Allan v. Terrell
1927 OK 251 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1927)
Inner Shoe Tire Co. v. Mueller
1925 OK 132 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Stratton v. Shaffer Oil & Refining Co.
1924 OK 483 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Reed v. Peck & Hills Furniture Co.
1923 OK 969 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Ozark States Trust Co. v. Winkler
1921 OK 378 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)
Vaughn v. Smith
1921 OK 57 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)
Colonial Jewelry Co. v. Bridges
1914 OK 576 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
German Stock Food Co. v. Miller
1913 OK 626 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Miller Bros. v. McCall Co.
1913 OK 430 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Ardmore Wholesale Grocery Co.
1912 OK 695 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Hercules Buggy Co. v. Hinde
1912 OK 364 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
McNinch v. Northwest Thresher Co.
1909 OK 60 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1907 OK 141, 91 P. 1130, 19 Okla. 433, 1907 Okla. LEXIS 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrison-v-kress-okla-1907.