paramount rule in Oklahoma

1935In the case of Strange v. Hicks, 78 Okla. 1 , 188 P. 347 , it was said: “The paramount rule of construction of a contract is to ascertain the intent of the parties at the time the contract was entered into, and to give effect to same if it can be done consistent with legal principles.

1921The courts will try to. give a contract such construction as will make it certain, hut cannot change its terms or make a new contract.” In Strange et al. v. Hicks et al., 78 Okla. 1 , 188 Pac. 347 , it is said as follows: *201 “The paramount rule for the construction of a contract is to ascertain the intent of the parties at the time the contract was entered into and to give effect to same if it can he done consistent with legal principles.

1935In the case of Strange v. Hicks, 78 Okla. 1 , 188 P. 347 , it was said: “The paramount rule of construction of a contract is to ascertain the intent of the parties at the time the contract was entered into, and to give effect to same if it can be done consistent with legal principles.

1921The courts will try to. give a contract such construction as will make it certain, hut cannot change its terms or make a new contract.” In Strange et al. v. Hicks et al., 78 Okla. 1 , 188 Pac. 347 , it is said as follows: *201 “The paramount rule for the construction of a contract is to ascertain the intent of the parties at the time the contract was entered into and to give effect to same if it can he done consistent with legal principles.

1935Where words employed to express a particular condition in a contract in writing are ambiguous and cannot be satisfactorily explained by reference to other portions thereof, it is not error to admit parol evidence to show the meaning intended by the parties as to the use of the words employed.” Barricklow et al. v. Boice et al., 50 Okla. 260 , 150 P. 1094 ; Woods et al. v. Davis, 155 Okla. 6 , 7 P. (2d) 905 .

1935Where words employed to express a particular condition in a contract in writing are ambiguous and cannot be satisfactorily explained by reference to other portions thereof, it is not error to admit parol evidence to show the meaning intended by the parties as to the use of the words employed.” Barricklow et al. v. Boice et al., 50 Okla. 260 , 150 P. 1094 ; Woods et al. v. Davis, 155 Okla. 6 , 7 P. (2d) 905 .

2016"Recitals in a journal entry of judgment are taken as true and correct and are prima facie proof of the facts stated therein where not impeached or contradicted,by the record,” Husband v. Husband, 2010 OK CIV APP 42, ¶ 21 , 233 P.3d 383, 387 (citing Haskett v. Turner, 1955 OK 329 , 290 P.2d 133 (Syl. 1)).

2016"Recitals in a journal entry of judgment are taken as true and correct and are prima facie proof of the facts stated therein where not impeached or contradicted,by the record,” Husband v. Husband, 2010 OK CIV APP 42, ¶ 21 , 233 P.3d 383, 387 (citing Haskett v. Turner, 1955 OK 329 , 290 P.2d 133 (Syl. 1)).

2016This Act is “the exclusive vehicle for recovery where misinformation is communicated in the sale of residential property.” White v. Lim, 2009 OK 79, ¶ 17 , 224 P.3d 679, 685 .

2016This Act is “the exclusive vehicle for recovery where misinformation is communicated in the sale of residential property.” White v. Lim, 2009 OK 79, ¶ 17 , 224 P.3d 679, 685 .

1968Upon this basis we have stated: “* * * Hence the question of need affords no criterion and the matter of--personal conduct is material only to the .extent it may reflect the existence ‘ 'or nonexistence of that endeavor which contributed to the creation of the estate.” See Hill v. Hill, 197 Okl. 697 , 174 P.2d 232, p. 234 ; Moyers v. Moyers, Okl., 372 P.2d 844 ; Tobin v. Tobin, 89 Okl. 12 , 213 P. 884, 889 .

1968Upon this basis we have stated: “* * * Hence the question of need affords no criterion and the matter of--personal conduct is material only to the .extent it may reflect the existence ‘ 'or nonexistence of that endeavor which contributed to the creation of the estate.” See Hill v. Hill, 197 Okl. 697 , 174 P.2d 232, p. 234 ; Moyers v. Moyers, Okl., 372 P.2d 844 ; Tobin v. Tobin, 89 Okl. 12 , 213 P. 884, 889 .

1968Upon this basis we have stated: “* * * Hence the question of need affords no criterion and the matter of--personal conduct is material only to the .extent it may reflect the existence ‘ 'or nonexistence of that endeavor which contributed to the creation of the estate.” See Hill v. Hill, 197 Okl. 697 , 174 P.2d 232, p. 234 ; Moyers v. Moyers, Okl., 372 P.2d 844 ; Tobin v. Tobin, 89 Okl. 12 , 213 P. 884, 889 .

1968Upon this basis we have stated: “* * * Hence the question of need affords no criterion and the matter of--personal conduct is material only to the .extent it may reflect the existence ‘ 'or nonexistence of that endeavor which contributed to the creation of the estate.” See Hill v. Hill, 197 Okl. 697 , 174 P.2d 232, p. 234 ; Moyers v. Moyers, Okl., 372 P.2d 844 ; Tobin v. Tobin, 89 Okl. 12 , 213 P. 884, 889 .

1968Upon this basis we have stated: “* * * Hence the question of need affords no criterion and the matter of--personal conduct is material only to the .extent it may reflect the existence ‘ 'or nonexistence of that endeavor which contributed to the creation of the estate.” See Hill v. Hill, 197 Okl. 697 , 174 P.2d 232, p. 234 ; Moyers v. Moyers, Okl., 372 P.2d 844 ; Tobin v. Tobin, 89 Okl. 12 , 213 P. 884, 889 .

1966The intention to abandon is the paramount inquiry.’ ” *382 See also Richardson v. Lawler, 204 Okl. 484 , 231 P.2d 671, 674 .

1966The intention to abandon is the paramount inquiry.’ ” *382 See also Richardson v. Lawler, 204 Okl. 484 , 231 P.2d 671, 674 .

1935Where words employed to express a particular condition in a contract in writing are ambiguous and cannot be satisfactorily explained by reference to other portions thereof, it is not error to admit parol evidence to show the meaning intended by the parties as to the use of the words employed.” Barricklow et al. v. Boice et al., 50 Okla. 260 , 150 P. 1094 ; Woods et al. v. Davis, 155 Okla. 6 , 7 P. (2d) 905 .

1935Where words employed to express a particular condition in a contract in writing are ambiguous and cannot be satisfactorily explained by reference to other portions thereof, it is not error to admit parol evidence to show the meaning intended by the parties as to the use of the words employed.” Barricklow et al. v. Boice et al., 50 Okla. 260 , 150 P. 1094 ; Woods et al. v. Davis, 155 Okla. 6 , 7 P. (2d) 905 .

1927C. v. Peerless, 190 Mich. 496 , in holding that, as against general expressions, the specific expressions control in the interpretation of contracts, quoted with approval the case of Torrence v. McDougald, 12 Ga. 526 , in which case it is said: “The rule of construction applicable to all writings, Constitutions, statutes, contracts, and charters, public or private, and even to ordinary conversation, is this: That general and unlimited terms are restrained and limited by particular recitals, when used in connection with them.” (2) It is universally conceded that the paramount rule for the inter

1927C. v. Peerless, 190 Mich. 496 , in holding that, as against general expressions, the specific expressions control in the interpretation of contracts, quoted with approval the case of Torrence v. McDougald, 12 Ga. 526 , in which case it is said: “The rule of construction applicable to all writings, Constitutions, statutes, contracts, and charters, public or private, and even to ordinary conversation, is this: That general and unlimited terms are restrained and limited by particular recitals, when used in connection with them.” (2) It is universally conceded that the paramount rule for the inter

1923Prowant v. Sealy, 77 Okla. 244 , 187 Pac. 235 ; Strange v. Hicks, 78, Okla. 1, 188 Pac. 347 ; D’Yarmett v. School District, 72 Oklahoma, 179 Pac. 20 .

1923Prowant v. Sealy, 77 Okla. 244 , 187 Pac. 235 ; Strange v. Hicks, 78, Okla. 1, 188 Pac. 347 ; D’Yarmett v. School District, 72 Oklahoma, 179 Pac. 20 .

1923Prowant v. Sealy, 77 Okla. 244 , 187 Pac. 235 ; Strange v. Hicks, 78, Okla. 1, 188 Pac. 347 ; D’Yarmett v. School District, 72 Oklahoma, 179 Pac. 20 .

1921If the language of a contract is such as to clearly show the intent of piarties, Vthen there is no need to apply any technical rules of construction, for where there is no doubt, there is no room for construction.” In Wolf et al. v. Blackwell Oil & Gas Co. et al., 77 Okla. 81 , 186 Pac. 484 , the court says: “The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity. and the whole of such contract is to be taken together so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the o

1921If the language of a contract is such as to clearly show the intent of piarties, Vthen there is no need to apply any technical rules of construction, for where there is no doubt, there is no room for construction.” In Wolf et al. v. Blackwell Oil & Gas Co. et al., 77 Okla. 81 , 186 Pac. 484 , the court says: “The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity. and the whole of such contract is to be taken together so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the o

1921If the language of a contract is such as to clearly show the intent of piarties, Vthen there is no need to apply any technical rules of construction, for where there is no doubt, there is no room for construction.” In Wolf et al. v. Blackwell Oil & Gas Co. et al., 77 Okla. 81 , 186 Pac. 484 , the court says: “The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity. and the whole of such contract is to be taken together so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the o

1921If the language of a contract is such as to clearly show the intent of piarties, Vthen there is no need to apply any technical rules of construction, for where there is no doubt, there is no room for construction.” In Wolf et al. v. Blackwell Oil & Gas Co. et al., 77 Okla. 81 , 186 Pac. 484 , the court says: “The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity. and the whole of such contract is to be taken together so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the o

1921If the language of a contract is such as to clearly show the intent of piarties, Vthen there is no need to apply any technical rules of construction, for where there is no doubt, there is no room for construction.” In Wolf et al. v. Blackwell Oil & Gas Co. et al., 77 Okla. 81 , 186 Pac. 484 , the court says: “The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity. and the whole of such contract is to be taken together so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the o

1921If the language of a contract is such as to clearly show the intent of piarties, Vthen there is no need to apply any technical rules of construction, for where there is no doubt, there is no room for construction.” In Wolf et al. v. Blackwell Oil & Gas Co. et al., 77 Okla. 81 , 186 Pac. 484 , the court says: “The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity. and the whole of such contract is to be taken together so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the o

1921If the language of a contract is such as to clearly show the intent of the parties, then there is no need to apply any technical rules of eon-struction, for where there is no doubt, there is no room for construction.” Strange et al. v. Hicks et al., 78 Okla. 1 , 188 Pac. 347 ; Duffy v. Scientific American Compiling Department, 30 Okla. 742 , 120 Pac. 1088 .

1921If the language of a contract is such as to clearly show the intent of the parties, then there is no need to apply any technical rules of eon-struction, for where there is no doubt, there is no room for construction.” Strange et al. v. Hicks et al., 78 Okla. 1 , 188 Pac. 347 ; Duffy v. Scientific American Compiling Department, 30 Okla. 742 , 120 Pac. 1088 .