Holliday v. Griffith Bros. & West
34 S.E. 126, 108 Ga. 803, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 447
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
Holliday v. Griffith Bros. & West, 34 S.E. 126, 108 Ga. 803, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 447 (Ga. 1899).
34 S.E. 126 (Holliday v. Griffith Bros. & West) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
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)