Peak v. Blythe

1 White & W. 12
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 17, 1877
DocketNo. 31, Op. Book No. 1, p. 168
StatusPublished

This text of 1 White & W. 12 (Peak v. Blythe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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]*13April 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

Related

Roberts v. Short
1 Tex. 373 (Texas Supreme Court, 1846)
Epperson v. Young
8 Tex. 135 (Texas Supreme Court, 1852)
Heatherly v. Record
12 Tex. 49 (Texas Supreme Court, 1854)
Rockmore v. Davenport
14 Tex. 602 (Texas Supreme Court, 1855)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 White & W. 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peak-v-blythe-texapp-1877.