Putnam Foundry & MacHine Co. v. Canfield

The defendant petitions for a new trial on the grounds (1) that the verdict is against the evidence; and (2) that the presiding justice erred in allowing the plaintiff to introduce parol evidence to vary a written contract.

1. An examination of the evidence submitted fails to satisfy us that it is not sufficient to sustain the verdict.

2. The written contract between the parties, which was entered into on March 25, 1903, was for the furnishing and installing by the plaintiff of a steam-heating and drying appa ratus in the defendant’s factory in Providence, and the contract stipulated, amongst…