Flemming v. Satterfield
| Decision Date | 16 May 1908 |
| Docket Number | (No. 973.) |
| Citation | 4 Ga.App. 351,61 S.E. 518 |
| Parties | FLEMMING. v. SATTERFIELD. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
1. Evidence — Parol Evidence Affecting Writings—Writing Complete on Its Face. "The rule is well settled that, where the parties have reduced to writing what appears to be a complete and certain agreement importing a legal obligation, it will, in the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, be conclusively presumed that the writing contains the whole of the agreement between the parties, and parol evidence of prior, contemporaneous, or subsequent conversations, representations, or statements will not be received for the purpose of adding to or varying the written instrument."
2 Mechem on Sales, § 1254; Civ. Code 1895, § 5201.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 20, Evidence, §§ 1855-1860.]
2. Same—Notes.
Where a promissory note is given for the purchase money of a mule, which is unambiguous and unconditional and contains no warranty of the soundness of the mule, no express warranty can be added to the note by parol, and a plea which set up an express warranty, alleged to have been made by parol contemporaneously with the execution of the note, was properly stricken on demurrer. Bullard v. Brewer. 118 Ga. 918, 45 S. E. 711; Seitz v. Brewers' Refrigerating Co., 141 U. S. 510, 12 Sup. Ct. 46. 35 L. Ed. 837; 2 Mechem on Sales, § 1254.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 20, Evidence, §§ 1799-1806.]
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from City Court of Hartwell; W. L. Hodges, Judge.
Action between M. T. Flemming and E. E. Satterfield, agent. From the judgment, Flemming brings error. Affirmed.
Jas. H. Skelton, for plaintiff in error.
A. A. McCurry and A. S. Skelton, for defendant in error.
POWELL, J., dissents, because he does not think this is a case in which the principle of the first headnote is applicable.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mizell Live Stock Co. v. Banks
...by prior or contemporaneous verbal representations or statements. Bullard v. Brewer, 118 Ga. 918, 45 S.E. 711; Fleming v. Satterfield, 4 Ga.App. 351, 61 S.E. 518. There is quite a difference between an attempt to the terms of a contract by parol testimony under a defense that the contract h......