Fitzhuch v. Runyon
New York Supreme Court
IN error, from the court of common pleas of Tiosra ’ r ° County. „, , , lhe declaration in the court below contained two counts.
Read the full summary
IN error, from the court of common pleas of Tiosra ’ r ° County. „, , , lhe declaration in the court below contained two counts. The first count was on a note-or agreement in writing, dated the 6th March, 1809, by which the defendant, in consideration of a horse, promised to pay the plaintiff SO dollars, in good merchantable pork, at the price of IS dollars per barrel, or in neat cattle at the appraisal of men, on the 1st day of January, 1810, to be delivered at the then dwelling-house of the said Fitzhugh, at, &c. There was also a count for money had and received. The defendant pleaded non…
1Per curiam
The parol proof to show that there was a mistake in the written contract, was inadmissible. It *376js a well settled rule, that, such proof is never admissible, ’ , r . . in a court of law, to contradict a writing. The judgment below, must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Smith v. FinchIllinois Supreme Court · 1840
- Van Allen v. AllenNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1858
- Linville v. HoldenDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1876
- Mix v. WhiteSupreme Court of Vermont · 1880