Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Citation
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Parent Document
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1979-03-21
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1567388/bryan-v-vaughn/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (35)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
Full Text
907 charsWe now consider defendants’ allegations of error. Point I of defendants’ brief relates again to Paragraph 4(a), discussed above, and states that the finding that defendants owed $2,500.00 on September 1, and the judgment resulting therefrom, should not be permitted to stand. Defendants urge us to adopt the view that Paragraph 4(a) is unambiguous, and that by its clear terms we should determine the existence of an overpayment in July and August, all seven rooms not then having been completed. We are unable to adopt the view urged. “It is sometimes said that if the words of a contract are plain and clear, evidence of surrounding circumstances to aid interpretation is not admissible. But some of the surrounding circumstances always must be known before the meaning of the words can be plain and clear; and proof of the circumstances may make a meaning plain and clear when in the absence of such *182