J. E. Smith & Co. v. Say

On the merits, the appellant’s claim is that his acceptance of the order was conditioned on the completion of the building by Newbern himself, and some of the corrections of the finding asked for, are involved in this branch of the case. On the face of the document the defendant’s claim cannot prevail. An accepted order of this kind is a nonnegotiable bill of exchange, the terms of which cannot be varied by parol after it has come into the hands of the payee. Smith & Co. v. Hurlburt Co., 93 Conn. 391, 106 Atl. 319. In that case the defendant had accepted a similar order “payable when…