Fitzhuch v. Runyon
8 Johns. 375
Opinion
The parol proof to show that there was a mistake in the written contract, was inadmissible. It [376]*376js a well settled rule, that, such proof is never admissible, ’ , r . . in a court of law, to contradict a writing. The judgment below, must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fitzhuch v. Runyon, 8 Johns. 375 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).
8 Johns. 375 (Fitzhuch v. Runyon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Mix v. White
52 Vt. 284 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1880)
Linville v. Holden
9 D.C. 329 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1876)
Van Allen v. Allen
1 Hilt. 524 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1858)
Smith v. Finch
3 Ill. 321 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1840)