Mitchell v. . Murray

107 N.E. 1081 | NY | 1914

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Even if the original contract had not been under seal the evidence offered would not be 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.