Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co v. Smith

• Decision Date: 15 November 1907
• Citation: 59 S.E. 215,129 Ga. 558
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. v. SMITH.

59 S.E. 215

129 Ga. 558

SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO.

v.SMITH.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 15, 1907.

Evidence—Parol Evidence—Written Contract.

While a mere receipt for money is always subject to explanation by parol, still, if a paper in the form of a receipt is really a contract between the parties and the stipulations agreed upon are sufficiently set forth therein, such paper is subject to the same rules as govern ordinary contracts in writing, and parol evidence is not admissible to contradict or vary the terms or stipulations.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 20, Evidence, § 1831.]

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Jefferson County; B. L. Rawlings, Judge.

Action by Le Roy Smith against the Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.

Smith sued the telephone company for damages resulting from the company having cut a wire fence around his premises at the time its line was being constructed. The defendant pleaded a release, which was as follows: "Right of Way. J. W. Deam. $20. Received of Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company twenty 00/100 dollars, in consideration of which I hereby grant unto said company, its successors and assigns, the right, privilege, and authority to construct, operate, and maintain its lines of telephone and telegraph, including the necessary poles and fixtures, upon and over the property which I own, or in which I have an interest in the—— of——, county of Jefferson, and state of Georgia, and along the roads, streets, or highways adjoining the said property. Said sum is received in full payment for said right, and the right to trim and cut trees along said line necessary to keep the wires cleared at least 25 feet, and the further right to erect the necessary guy and brace poles, and attach to trees the necessary guy wires. Said sum received as full payment for damage to timber and premises 1bconstruction and maintenance of line. Witness my hand and seal this 5th day of January, A. D. 1003, at Bartow, Ga. [Signed] Le Roy Smith [L. S.], Landowner. Witness: [Signed] J. W. Deam." The court over objection permitted the plaintiff to testify that at the time this release was signed he did not know that his fence had been damaged, and the release was intended to cover only the damage to timber caused by the construction. It appears from the evidence that the damage to the fence was complete at the time that the release was signed. There is no evidence that any one...