Scott v. SCOTT

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[0]ne of the most valuable safeguards thrown around a deed is that parol evidence is not admissible to vary or contradict the terms of a written contract, and this applies in all its strictness to actions involving deeds.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Springob v. Farrar
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1999-02-22· cited 13×
• Smith v. McClam
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1986-07-28· cited 8×
• Nelson v. United Fire Ins. Co. of New York
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1980-06-10· cited 8×
• Heath Springs Light & Power Co. v. Lynches River Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1957-03-05· cited 7×
• Brock v. Brock
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1950-11-10· cited 6×
• Carmichael v. Huggins
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1952-04-10· cited 2×
• Mooney v. James
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1986-04-28