Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Ga. App. 226

Reams v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided November 24, 1908

Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1908-11-24

Complaint, from city court of Atlanta — Judge Beid. June 19, 1908. Mrs. Thompson sued Mrs. Beams on a series of notes, which on their faces were negotiable, and which, according to their terms, were past due. In the notes it is expressly stipulated, that as to the maturity of the notes, time is of the essence, and that if as many as three of the notes should be due and remain unpaid for as much as thirty days, the entire series should therefrom become due at once.

Relies on Patterson v. Ramspeck & Green · Denham v. Walker · Dooley v. Gorman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1908-11-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 1933

4 state decisions

201908191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Powell, J.

¶1(After stating the foregoing facts.)

¶21. The plea, so far as it related to the alleged agreement made at the time the notes were executed, was a direct, unmasked attempt •to vary the express terms of a written contract by a parol contemporaneous agreement. The fact that there was consideration for this parol agreement does not render the rule forbidding such contradiction of a written contract any the less applicable. The express terms of a written instrument are not to be varied by proof of a parol contemporaneous contract, any more than they are to be varied by proof of a parol contemporaneous nudum pactum. Jones v. Taylor, ante, 161 (62 S. E. 992). The cases cited by counsel for plaintiff in error are easily distinguishable: Denham v. Walker, 93 Ga. 501 (21 S. E. 102), related to an executed parol subsequent agreement by which the terms of the original contract had been changed; Dooly v. Gorman, 104 Ga. 767 (31 S. E. 203), was based on the proposition that the plaintiff procured the contract by fraud, and did not involve the question here decided.

¶32. The plea, so far as it attempted to set up that subsequently to the execution of the written contract the plaintiff agreed to accept another as a purchaser of the land, in substitution for the defendant, is bad, if for no other reason, in that the alleged agreement related to lands and an interest therein, and was within the statute of frauds. No such performance was shown as to fulfill ihe requirements of any of the exceptions to that statute. See also Patterson v. Ramspeck, 81 Ga. 808 (10 S. E. 390).

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/5/gaapp/226 · .json · Public domain