Peak v. Blythe

Court of Appeals of Texas

Peak v. Blythe

1 White & W. 12

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 17, 1877·No. No. 31, Op. Book No. 1, p. 168·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

Ector, P. J.

§ 7. Parol evidence to vary written contract. The general rule of. law is, that such evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument. [1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 275, 276; Heatherly v. Record, 12 Tex. 50; Keith v. Garrett, 29 Tex. 52; Self v. King, 28 Tex. 553; Reid v. Allen, 18 Tex. 243; Rockmore v. Davenport, 14 Tex. 602.]

[13] April 17, 1877.

§8. Parol evidence, when admissible. The written contract may be contradicted when fraud or mistake is alleged and proven. Or when the written contract is of doubtful meaning, it may be explained by parol evidence. [Roberts v. Short, 1 Tex. 373; Epperson v. Young, 8 Tex. 135; Mead v. Rutledge, 11 Tex. 50.]

Reversed and remanded.

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

Opinion by

Ector, P. J.

§ 7. Parol evidence to vary written contract. The general rule of. law is, that such evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument. [1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 275, 276; Heatherly v. Record, 12 Tex. 50; Keith v. Garrett, 29 Tex. 52; Self v. King, 28 Tex. 553; Reid v. Allen, 18 Tex. 243; Rockmore v. Davenport, 14 Tex. 602.]

[13] April 17, 1877.

§8. Parol evidence, when admissible. The written contract may be contradicted when fraud or mistake is alleged and proven. Or when the written contract is of doubtful meaning, it may be explained by parol evidence. [Roberts v. Short, 1 Tex. 373; Epperson v. Young, 8 Tex. 135; Mead v. Rutledge, 11 Tex. 50.]

Reversed and remanded.

Peak v. Blythe, 1 White & W. 12 (Tex. Ct. App. 1877).

Pincite

1 White & W. 12 (Peak v. Blythe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related