Pine v. Lenox Drilling Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Foster v. Atlas Life Ins. Co.

    6 P.2d 805 (Okla. 1931)   Cited 21 times

    "Parol evidence is not admissible to vary, add to, or change the terms of a written contract and cannot be admitted under the guise of explaining or construing the contract where the written contract is plain in its terms, and no fraud, accident, or mistake is alleged in the execution of the same." Pine v. Lenox Drilling Co., 119 Okla. 225, 249 P. 420. 4. Same.

  2. ROLLISON v. MUIR

    163 Okla. 266 (Okla. 1933)   Cited 5 times

    These cases are not controlling herein, since in this case there is a finding by the jury, approved by the court and supported by the evidence, that the relation of principal and agent existed prior to and at the time of the execution of the option contract. Several of defendant's assignments of error may be summarized as follows: That it was the duty of plaintiff to read the option contract before signing it, and, having failed to do so, she cannot now urge fraud predicated on the contents of the writing, and should not be allowed to testify that she did not know or understand the nature and effect of the contract, citing the following authorities: Colonial Jewelry Co. v. Bridges, 43 Okla. 813, 144 P. 577; White Sewing Machine Co. v. McCarty, 58 Okla. 545, 160 P. 495; Ames v. Milam, 53 Okla. 739, 157 P. 941; Ozark States Trust Co. v. Winkler, 84 Okla. 7, 202 P. 12; Pine v. Lenox Drilling Co., 119 Okla. 226, 249 P. 420; J. B. Colt Co. v. Florence, 128 Okla. 15, 261 P. 142. We find no fault with the general rule announced in those cases, but the books are full of cases recognizing the exceptions to said rule, and the facts of this case we believe bring it within said exceptions.