Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Citation
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Parent Document
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Jurisdiction
- Montana (state)
- Effective Date
- 1965-12-08
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1421283/kintner-v-harr/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (95)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
Full Text
542 charsFurthermore, Harr’s argument continues, inasmuch as the price of the liquor license as recorded in the document was $9,000.00, there was no consideration recited for Harr’s promise to assume the lease. No evidence, therefore, could be admitted to prove that Riggs considered both the $9,000.00 cash and the promise to assume the lease as constituting the total consideration for the transaction, because to admit such evidence, says Harr, would violate the parol evidence rule by varying the plain and explicit terms of the written agreement.