Donley v. Tindall
Citations
- 32 Tex. 43
Syllabus
<p>1— There can be no controversy as to the general principle of the admissibility of extrinsic evidence to explain written instruments.</p> <p>2— The rule that parol evidence, to affect written contracts, must be confined within the strict limits of exposition and interpretation, is based upon the assumption that the written contract has a legal existence and is valid.</p> <p>8—The general rule that all parol agreements and negotiations between the parties to a written contract, anterior to or contemporaneous with the written contract, are to be regarded as merged in it, is admitted; but this general rule does not exclude parol evidence of subsequent verbal agreements, varying the terms of the written contract.</p> <p>4.—Though the written instrument is thus to be regarded as embracing the entire contract at the time of its execution, yet this is only predicated of contracts which are lawful in their character; and the rule cannot be invoked to cover, protect, enforce or sanction such contracts as may by extrinsic evidence be shown to have been entered into contrary to public policy, or to public morals, or otherwise to be unlawful.</p> <p>5— With reference to such illegal contracts, the distinction is clearly drawn between such as are executory and sought to be enforced and such as are actual conveyances or are already executed. The former may be avoided, but the latter can not be avoided by the immediate parties to them.</p> <p>6— The principle inflexibly observed in such cases is, that courts will neither aid in the execution of an illegal executory contract, nor relieve from an illegal contract a party who has executed it.</p> <p>7— Parties who, during the late rebellion, contracted on the basis of Confederate money, and thus speculated on the chances of the failure of the Government, whose authority they contemned, must abide the results ; they need not look to the courts to effectuate contracts which, no matter how remotely or contingently, contemplated the d
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- nterpreting predecessor statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 351.565
- interpreting predecessor statute, MO. REV. STAT. § 351.565
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Hamilton, Lindsay
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.