Philips & Butler v. Rose
8 Johns. 392
N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1811
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

This case falls precisely within that of Little v. Holland, in the K. B. (3 Term Rep. 590.) The contract must be proved, as it is laid, otherwise the defendant has no notice of what he is called upon to answer. Evidence that the contract was enlarged by parol agreement, will not support the declaration.(a) According to the stipulation in the case, a judgment of nonsuit must be entered.

Judgment of nonsuit.

See Keating v. Price, (1 Johns. Cas. 23.)