 | William Blake Odgers - 1911 - 1120 стор.
...admissible to explain and control, but not to contradict, a written instrument, such as a contract. It may be admissible to explain what is doubtful ;...it is never admissible to contradict what is plain (a). Thus, wherever the language of a written instrument is so clear that there can be no reasonable... | |
 | Burr W. Jones, Louis Horwitz - 1913 - 1058 стор.
...contradicts expressly or by implication the language of the contract. As was said by Lord Lyndhurst:66 "Usage may be admissible to explain what is doubtful; it is never admissible to contradict what is plain." Mr. Justice Miller has put it very plainly in speaking of the tendency to establish local and limited... | |
 | 1916 - 1386 стор.
...200): 2 Pars. Cont. § 9, p. 535; Taylor, Ev., p. 943, and following. 'Usage,' says Lord Lyndhurst, 'may be admissible to explain what is doubtful ; it...is never admissible to contradict what is plain.' Brnckett v. Royal Exch. Ass. Co., 2 Crompt. & 3. 249. And it is well settled that usage cannot be allowed... | |
 | 1920 - 1092 стор.
...must exist, and the usage be consistent with the words used. As Lord Lyndhurst expressed it: "Usage may be admissible to explain what is doubtful; it is never admissible to contradict what is plain." Neither of these two requisite foundations for the testimony is stated In the syllabus. In fact, the... | |
 | 1905 - 842 стор.
...language of Lord Lyndhurst in Blockett v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 2 Cromp & Jervis, 244, that 'usage may be admissible to explain what is doubtful ; it is never admissible to contradict what is plain.' This rule is based upon the theory that the parties, if aware of any usage or custom relating to the... | |
 | 1924 - 524 стор.
...claim for damages was not disputed as to the amount thereof. 1. It has been said of old that usage may be admissible to explain what is doubtful ; it is never admissible to contradict what is plain, In Jones & Co. v. Cochran et al, 33 Okla. 431, 126 Pac. 716, it is said: "The circumstances under which... | |
 | Frederic Campbell Woodward - 1925 - 884 стор.
...Parsons on Contracts, §§ 9, 535 ; Taylor on Evidence, 943, and following. Usage, says Lord Lyndhurst, "may be admissible to explain what is doubtful ; it...is never admissible to contradict what is plain." Blackett v. Royal Exchange Assu. Co., 2 Crompton & Jervis, 249. And it is well settled that usage cannot... | |
 | 1905 - 1060 стор.
...language of Lord Lyndhurst in Blockett v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 2 Cromp & Jervis, 244, that 'usage may be admissible to explain what is doubtful ; it is never admissible to contradict what is plain.' This rule is based upon the theory that the parties, if aware of any usage or custom relating to the... | |
 | Nova Scotia. Supreme Court, James Thomson, Alexander James (Reporter), Fitzgerald Cochran, Henry Oldright (Reporter), John Morris Geldert (Reporter), James Macdonald Oxley (Reporter), Benjamin Russell, Samuel Ainsley Chesley, Frank W. Russell (Reporter), William Bernard Wallace, LaMert S. Whinyard - 1853 - 498 стор.
...Usage," says Lord Lyndhurst in Blackelt v. The JRoyal Exchange Assurance Company, 2 C. and J. 249, " may be admissible to explain what is doubtful; it is never admissible to contradict what is plain." In this case the evidence went directly to contradict the contract, and to substitute a very different... | |
 | 1912 - 1264 стор.
...implication, the language or the substance 'if the contract Jones on Evidence (2d Ed.) I). 585. "Usage may be admissible to explain what Is doubtful. It Is never admissible to contradict what is plain." Here the draft was drawn to the order of the bank, and was indorsed by it alone, for collection for... | |
| |
usage may be admissible to explain what is doubtful; it is never admissible to contradict what is plain. 
