Summary
In Gould v. Lee, 55 Pa. 99, — Chief Justice WOODWARD says, "Parol evidence is not admissible to alter or contradict what is written, upon the very obvious principle that the writing is the best evidence of the intentions of the parties; but parol evidence has many times been received to explain and define the subject-matter of written agreements.
Summary of this case from Feld v. ShapiroOpinion
NO. 02-13-00085-CV
08-01-2013
MARY ELIZABETH GOULD APPELLANT v. MARK W. LEE APPELLEE
FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
On July 10, 2013, we notified appellant that her brief had not been filed as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. We have not received any response.
Because appellant's brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).
Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.
PER CURIAM PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.