Fitzhuch v. Runyon
8 Johns. 375
This text of 8 Johns. 375 (Fitzhuch v. Runyon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Fitzhuch v. Runyon, 8 Johns. 375 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).
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
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)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
8 Johns. 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzhuch-v-runyon-nysupct-1811.