Schultz v. . Bradley

New York Court of Appeals

Schultz v. . Bradley

57 N.Y. 646

New York Court of Appeals·Decided January 5, 1874·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Reynolds, C.,

reads for reversal and new trial; Lott, Ch. C., and Gray, C., concur.

Earl, C.,

reads for affirmance; Johnson, C., concurs.

Lott, Ch. C.,

for reversal, on ground that the written contract could not be enlarged by an oral agreement, and that there was no acceptance of leather under the oral agreements. Judgment reversed; Earl and Johnson, CC., dissenting.

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

Reynolds, C.,

reads for reversal and new trial; Lott, Ch. C., and Gray, C., concur.

Earl, C.,

reads for affirmance; Johnson, C., concurs.

Lott, Ch. C.,

for reversal, on ground that the written contract could not be enlarged by an oral agreement, and that there was no acceptance of leather under the oral agreements. Judgment reversed; Earl and Johnson, CC., dissenting.

Schultz v. . Bradley, 57 N.Y. 646 (N.Y. 1874).

Pincite

57 N.Y. 646 (Schultz v. . Bradley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related