TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Butler v. Standard Guaranty & Trust Co.

Butler v. Standard Guaranty and Trust Company

Butler v. Standard Guar. & Trust Co., 50 S.E. 132 (Ga. 1905)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 7, 1905
Judges
Simmons
Citations
50 S.E. 132122 Ga. 3711905 Ga. LEXIS 211
Summary
Equitable petition. Before Judge Lumpkin. Fulton superior court. June 9, 1904.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Simmons

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Simmons, C. J.

1. Where one enters into a written contract with another, the agreements and “understandings” concerning representations made by one of the parties to the other before the signing of the contract are presumed to be incorporated therein, and parol evidence is not admissible to vary or change the terms of the contract.

2. Where a party to a written contract alleges in her petition to rescind that certain representations, not embodied in the contract, were made by the agent of the other party (a corporation) in order to induce her to sign the same, she can not have it rescinded on account of such representations, when on the back of the contract which was delivered to her is this printed stipulation: “The company shall be bound by and responsible for only such statements as are contained in this contract, and no officer or agent of this company, general, special, or State agent, has any authority to promise a loan or to bind the company by any promise, representation, or other statement not contained in this contract.”

3. Where a petition brought to rescind such a contract as above described alleges that the corporation ratified the acts of its agent by receiving some of the money collected by him through false representations, and does not allege that the corporation had full knowledge of all the facts when the the money was received, it does not show a ratification.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1905: 11917: 21919: 11923: 21924: 11937: 11963: 11979: 119052026peak 1917 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list