Mitchell v. . Murray
107 N.E. 1081, 213 N.Y. 669, 1914 N.Y. LEXIS 825
Opinion
Judgment affirmed, with costs. Even if the original contract had not been under seal the evidence offered would not he sufficient to show that the same had been modified by a subsequent parol contract.
Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Collin, Cuddeback, Miller and Cardozo, JJ. Absent: Werner, J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mitchell v. . Murray, 107 N.E. 1081, 213 N.Y. 669, 1914 N.Y. LEXIS 825 (N.Y. 1914).
107 N.E. 1081 (Mitchell v. . Murray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Lion Brewery v. Fricke
204 A.D. 470 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1923)
Along-the-Hudson Co. v. Ayres
170 A.D. 218 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915)