57 N.Y. 646
Decided January 5, 1874
New York Court of Appeals · decided 1874-01-05
This action was brought for an alleged breach of contract. Held: that the verbal agreements modifying the original contract were void under the statute of frauds ; also (Eabl and Johnson, CC., dissenting), that the delivery and acceptance, after the first modification, must be assumed to have been under the original contract, and so did not take the verbal contract out of the operation of the…
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1922
1 federal appellate ·
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1874-01-05
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1 reads for reversal and new trial; Lott, Ch. C., and Gray, C., concur.
¶2 reads for affirmance; Johnson, C., concurs.
¶3 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.