Shaw v. Parvin

Court of Appeals of Texas

Shaw v. Parvin

1 White & W. 154

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 9, 1883

DocketNo. 2572, Op. Book No. 4

StatusPublished

This text of 1 White & W. 154 (Shaw v. Parvin) 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

Shaw v. Parvin, 1 White & W. 154 (Tex. Ct. App. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 365. Contemporaneous instruments. Two or more instruments, executed contemporaneously between the same parties, in reference to the same subject matter, are deemed one instrument and one contract. [Dunlap v. Wright, 11 Tex. 597; Howard v. Davis, 6 Tex. 174; Alexander v. Baylor, 20 Tex. 560.]

§ 366. Parol evidence in connection with ivritien instruments. In general, parol evidence is not admissible to vary a written contract [Dewees v. Lockhart, 1 Tex. 535; Franklin v. Mooney, 2 Tex. 452; Stamper v. Johnson, 3 Tex. 1; Self v. King, 28 Tex. 552]; but such evidence is admissible to explain an ambiguity [Franklin v. Mooney, 2 Tex. 452; Hamman v. Keigwin, 39 Tex. 34], or to explain a writing, when the explanation is necessary, and the evidence is consistent with the writing [Bender v. Pryor, 31 Tex. 341], and to ascertain the intention of the parties, when doubtful [Smith v. Doak, 3 Tex. 215], or to explain the language or terms used. [Roberts v. Short, 1 Tex. 373; Epperson v. Young, 8 Tex. 135.]

[155]*155May 9, 1883.

§ 367. Case tried by the judge without d jury. Where a jury is waived and the case is tried by the court, and there is a conflict of evidence, the court below being in a better attitude to weigh, pass upon and determine the evidence than this court can possibly be, its judgment, based upon the evidence, will not be disturbed.

Affirmed.

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

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 365. Contemporaneous instruments. Two or more instruments, executed contemporaneously between the same parties, in reference to the same subject matter, are deemed one instrument and one contract. [Dunlap v. Wright, 11 Tex. 597; Howard v. Davis, 6 Tex. 174; Alexander v. Baylor, 20 Tex. 560.]

§ 366. Parol evidence in connection with ivritien instruments. In general, parol evidence is not admissible to vary a written contract [Dewees v. Lockhart, 1 Tex. 535; Franklin v. Mooney, 2 Tex. 452; Stamper v. Johnson, 3 Tex. 1; Self v. King, 28 Tex. 552]; but such evidence is admissible to explain an ambiguity [Franklin v. Mooney, 2 Tex. 452; Hamman v. Keigwin, 39 Tex. 34], or to explain a writing, when the explanation is necessary, and the evidence is consistent with the writing [Bender v. Pryor, 31 Tex. 341], and to ascertain the intention of the parties, when doubtful [Smith v. Doak, 3 Tex. 215], or to explain the language or terms used. [Roberts v. Short, 1 Tex. 373; Epperson v. Young, 8 Tex. 135.]

[155]*155May 9, 1883.

§ 367. Case tried by the judge without d jury. Where a jury is waived and the case is tried by the court, and there is a conflict of evidence, the court below being in a better attitude to weigh, pass upon and determine the evidence than this court can possibly be, its judgment, based upon the evidence, will not be disturbed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 White & W. 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-v-parvin-texapp-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack