Swanson v. Mobley

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Swanson v. Mobley

127 S.E. 806, 33 Ga. App. 791, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 722

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 17, 1925

Docket15883

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 127 S.E. 806 (Swanson v. Mobley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Swanson v. Mobley, 127 S.E. 806, 33 Ga. App. 791, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 722 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. “Generally, parol negotiations and stipulations preceding- tlie making of a written contract are merged in the writing. If the writing is ambiguous, it may be'explained by parol evidence, and even when not so, the admission of such parol evidence without objection affords no cause for a new trial.” Wheelwright v. Aiken, 92 Ga. 394 (3) (17 S. E. 610); Rome Hotel Co. v. Warlick, 87 Ga. 34 (2), 42 (13 S. E. 116); Goodwyn v. Goodwyn, 20 Ga. 600 (10); Supreme Lodge v. Gardner, 19 Ga. App. 58 (4), 59 (90 S. E. 986); Bugg v. State, 17 Ga. App. 211 (3) (86 S. E. 405).

2. In the instant ease, in which a verdict for the plaintiff was rendered in a dispossessory proceeding, the motion for a new trial is limited to the general grounds. The evidence, admitted without objection, authorized a finding that the defendant had failed to pay the money rent and keep the property insured, as required by the terms of the oral agreement, and had also failed to keep the premises in repair, as required by the terms of the written lease. The verdict for the plaintiff being thus authorized by the evidence, admitted without objection, the question as to error in the admission of such parol testimony, suggested only in the brief of the defendant’s counsel, can not be considered.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

1. “Generally, parol negotiations and stipulations preceding- tlie making of a written contract are merged in the writing. If the writing is ambiguous, it may be'explained by parol evidence, and even when not so, the admission of such parol evidence without objection affords no cause for a new trial.” Wheelwright v. Aiken, 92 Ga. 394 (3) (17 S. E. 610); Rome Hotel Co. v. Warlick, 87 Ga. 34 (2), 42 (13 S. E. 116); Goodwyn v. Goodwyn, 20 Ga. 600 (10); Supreme Lodge v. Gardner, 19 Ga. App. 58 (4), 59 (90 S. E. 986); Bugg v. State, 17 Ga. App. 211 (3) (86 S. E. 405).

2. In the instant ease, in which a verdict for the plaintiff was rendered in a dispossessory proceeding, the motion for a new trial is limited to the general grounds. The evidence, admitted without objection, authorized a finding that the defendant had failed to pay the money rent and keep the property insured, as required by the terms of the oral agreement, and had also failed to keep the premises in repair, as required by the terms of the written lease. The verdict for the plaintiff being thus authorized by the evidence, admitted without objection, the question as to error in the admission of such parol testimony, suggested only in the brief of the defendant’s counsel, can not be considered.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 S.E. 806, 33 Ga. App. 791, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swanson-v-mobley-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack