Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Citation
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Parent Document
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Jurisdiction
- Kentucky (state)
- Effective Date
- 1967-02-03
Other Sections in This Document (40)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
Full Text
318 charsThe court rejected the contention that this result involved an improper variation of the written terms of the contract by parol evidence. “Contracts,” it was pointed out, “must be construed from the standpoint of the parties, and the terms employed must be given effect from that standpoint.” The court went on to say: