Wyche v. Winship

Supreme Court of Georgia

Wyche v. Winship

13 Ga. 208

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 15, 1853

DocketNo. 25

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 13 Ga. 208 (Wyche v. Winship) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wyche v. Winship, 13 Ga. 208 (Ga. 1853).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

Lord Hardwicke is reported to have said, that parol evidence might be given, of collateral matters, about which the written contract was silent — as that the landlord agreed to make repair, or the tenant to pay the rent clear of taxes. Norris' Peake, 191. And this extra-judicial opinion seems to have been approved by Mr. Justice Blackstone, in Preston vs. Merceau, executor. 2 W. Blackstone's Rep. 1249.

[1.] But it has been expressly and repeatedly decided that parol evidence is inadmissible to prove even these collatteral matters concerning which the writing is silent. Earl of Rutlands’ Case, 5 Rep. 26, a. first resolution. Brown vs. Lelum, Ca. Tem. Talbot, 240. Partuiche vs. Poulet, 2 Atkin, 383. Pym vs. Blackburn, 3 Ves. jr. 36. Meers vs. Ansell, 3 Wils. 275. Boydell vs. Drummond, 11 East. 142, 153. [210]*210Hope vs. Atkins, 1 Price, 143. Greaves vs. Ashton, 3 Camp. 426. Rich vs. Jackson, 4 Bro. Ch. Cas. 514; and see Mr. Eden’s note, Ib. 6 Ves. jr. 334, n. (c) S. C. Parkhurst vs. Van Courtland, 1 John. Ch. Rep. 273, S. C.; on Appeal 14 Johns. Rep. 15. Gilpins vs. Consequa, 1 Peters, 85, 87. O’Hara vs. Hall, 4 Dall. 340. Wolf vs. Carethers, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 240. Wallace vs. Baker, 1 Binn. 610. Marshall vs. Sholt, Add. 361. Bruce vs. Barber, 3 Conn. Rep. 9. McCoy vs. Moss & Wenling, 5 Porter, 85.

All these authorities, and innumerable others, which are scattered broadcast throughout the books, show that a term agreed upon by parol cannot be added to a written conti act.

No principle of law has been more frequently the subject of consideration than this, before this Court; and foreseeing and duly appreciating the mischief that would ensue if it were abrogated or frittered away, we have, from the commencement of our organization, labored hard and perseveringly to preserve it inviolate.

The Court below did not err in striking out the defendant’s plea, and its judgment is therefore affirmed.

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

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

Lord Hardwicke is reported to have said, that parol evidence might be given, of collateral matters, about which the written contract was silent — as that the landlord agreed to make repair, or the tenant to pay the rent clear of taxes. Norris' Peake, 191. And this extra-judicial opinion seems to have been approved by Mr. Justice Blackstone, in Preston vs. Merceau, executor. 2 W. Blackstone's Rep. 1249.

[1.] But it has been expressly and repeatedly decided that parol evidence is inadmissible to prove even these collatteral matters concerning which the writing is silent. Earl of Rutlands’ Case, 5 Rep. 26, a. first resolution. Brown vs. Lelum, Ca. Tem. Talbot, 240. Partuiche vs. Poulet, 2 Atkin, 383. Pym vs. Blackburn, 3 Ves. jr. 36. Meers vs. Ansell, 3 Wils. 275. Boydell vs. Drummond, 11 East. 142, 153. [210]*210Hope vs. Atkins, 1 Price, 143. Greaves vs. Ashton, 3 Camp. 426. Rich vs. Jackson, 4 Bro. Ch. Cas. 514; and see Mr. Eden’s note, Ib. 6 Ves. jr. 334, n. (c) S. C. Parkhurst vs. Van Courtland, 1 John. Ch. Rep. 273, S. C.; on Appeal 14 Johns. Rep. 15. Gilpins vs. Consequa, 1 Peters, 85, 87. O’Hara vs. Hall, 4 Dall. 340. Wolf vs. Carethers, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 240. Wallace vs. Baker, 1 Binn. 610. Marshall vs. Sholt, Add. 361. Bruce vs. Barber, 3 Conn. Rep. 9. McCoy vs. Moss & Wenling, 5 Porter, 85.

All these authorities, and innumerable others, which are scattered broadcast throughout the books, show that a term agreed upon by parol cannot be added to a written conti act.

No principle of law has been more frequently the subject of consideration than this, before this Court; and foreseeing and duly appreciating the mischief that would ensue if it were abrogated or frittered away, we have, from the commencement of our organization, labored hard and perseveringly to preserve it inviolate.

The Court below did not err in striking out the defendant’s plea, and its judgment is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Ga. 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wyche-v-winship-ga-1853.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack