Holliday v. Griffith Bros. & West
34 S.E. 126, 108 Ga. 803, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 447
This text of 34 S.E. 126 (Holliday v. Griffith Bros. & West) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Holliday v. Griffith Bros. & West, 34 S.E. 126, 108 Ga. 803, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 447 (Ga. 1899).
Opinion
1. When it appears that a contract has been reduced to writing and duly executed, it is erroneous to admit, over proper objection, parol evidence as to its contents; and proving by parol what a given writing does not contain is as much forbidden as proving in this manner what it does contain.
2. The court below erred in overruling the certiorari.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
City of Atlanta v. Hawkins
166 S.E. 262 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Aspinwall v. Chisholm & Co.
34 S.E. 568 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1899)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
34 S.E. 126, 108 Ga. 803, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holliday-v-griffith-bros-west-ga-1899.