Keller v. Webb

126 Mass. 393, 1879 Mass. LEXIS 272
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 11, 1879·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The question proposed by the defendants was rightly excluded, because it sought not only to add to, but to alter, the written contract by paroi evidence.

As to the description of the contract, there was a variance between the declaration and the proof; but, as the merits of the case appear to have been fully tried, that variance may and should be allowed to be cured after verdict, by an amendment [395] of the declaration, the plaintiff taking no costs since the trial. Cleaves v. Lord, 3 Gray, 66. Stone v. White, 8 Gray, 589. Peck v. Waters, 104 Mass. 345.

Upon such amendment, exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Keller v. Webb, 126 Mass. 393, 1879 Mass. LEXIS 272 (Mass. 1879).

126 Mass. 393 (Keller v. Webb) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pizer v. Hunt
148 N.E. 801 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)
Fay v. Walsh
77 N.E. 44 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Cronan v. City of Woburn
70 N.E. 38 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
Campbell & Zell Co. v. Barr Pumping Engine Co.
182 Mass. 304 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1902)
Whitehead & Atherton Machine Co. v. Ryder
31 N.E. 736 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1885)
Denham v. Bryant
28 N.E. 691 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1885)
Whitney v. Houghton
127 Mass. 527 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1879)