Hickman Ebbert Co. v. Asa W. Allen Co.

Mississippi Supreme Court

Hickman Ebbert Co. v. Asa W. Allen Co.

71 So. 310, 111 Miss. 161

Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided March 15, 1916·Published

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellee’s defense is, not that the contract sued on “never had any legal existence because its execution was procured by fraud,” but that the provision therein relative to the discount to be allowed does not express the real agreement entered into at the time the contract was signed; in other words, the attempt here is simply to vary the terms of a written contract by parol.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellee’s defense is, not that the contract sued on “never had any legal existence because its execution was procured by fraud,” but that the provision therein relative to the discount to be allowed does not express the real agreement entered into at the time the contract was signed; in other words, the attempt here is simply to vary the terms of a written contract by parol.

Reversed and remanded.

Hickman Ebbert Co. v. Asa W. Allen Co., 71 So. 310, 111 Miss. 161 (Mich. 1916).

Pincite

71 So. 310 (Hickman Ebbert Co. v. Asa W. Allen Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.