5 Mo. 101
Decided May 15, 1838
Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1838-05-15
<p>Parol proof is not admissible to vary, add to, or contradict a witten instrument.</p> <p>P?T0} ry^add to^or^on-tradict a written ¡“Btromem.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1838-05-15
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 1899
4 state decisions
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 →
¶1dissenting:
¶2I am of opinion the law in this case is correctly laid down; but I am also of opinion that the law is hardly applicable to the case. I consider the evidence offered sufficient to establish a substantive and distinct contract, and in no wise enlarging the bond, but proceeding on new matter fit for the subject of a new and distinct agreement.