Mitchell v. . Murray
107 N.E. 1081, 213 N.Y. 669, 1914 N.Y. LEXIS 825
This text of 107 N.E. 1081 (Mitchell v. . Murray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Mitchell v. . Murray, 107 N.E. 1081, 213 N.Y. 669, 1914 N.Y. LEXIS 825 (N.Y. 1914).
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
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)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
107 N.E. 1081, 213 N.Y. 669, 1914 N.Y. LEXIS 825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-murray-ny-1914.