Hughes v. Tinsley & Bros.

Citations

• 80 Va. 259
• 1885 Va. LEXIS 63

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence — Extrinsic.-—Where a written contract is perfect in itself and its terms are clear and intelligible, parol testimony is inadmissible to contradict, vary, or materially to affect it by way of explanation.</p> <p>2. Practice in Chancery — Answer.—Where bill sets forth a contract and the plaintiff’s construction thereof, and the answer admits the contract and claims under it, but denies the correctness of the plaintiff’s construction, this is not such a denial as per se, entitles the respondent to a dissolution of the pending injunction.</p> <p>8. Contracts- — Construction—Case at bar.- — H. by written contract, sells T. & Bro. certain growing timber, and allows them four years to cut it down. Afterwards, she endorses on the contract these words: “ I agree to extend the time for cutting timber as fixed in this contract each yearT. & Bro. rent and operate the G. steam mills, said extension to cover a period of five' years from the expiration of this within contract, this extension of time being based on said T. & Bro. renting and operating said G. steam mills.” Before the expiration of the four years, said mills burned down and were never rebuilt, and had never since then been rented and operated by T. & Bro.</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>1. The extension was to begin after the expiration of the four years, and the condition upon which the extension was to begin, never was fulfilled.</p>