Hamilton v. Hart
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery county: Of January Term 1885, No. 393. This was an action of assumpsit, by John D. Hart against William C. Hamilton and Charles L. Hamilton, trading as William C. Hamilton & Son. The plaintiff declared upon a sealed contract made with defendants to build additions to their paper mill, etc., setting out the contract and specifications verbatim in a special count, and alleging parol variations.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery county: Of January Term 1885, No. 393. This was an action of assumpsit, by John D. Hart against William C. Hamilton and Charles L. Hamilton, trading as William C. Hamilton & Son. The plaintiff declared upon a sealed contract made with defendants to build additions to their paper mill, etc., setting out the contract and specifications verbatim in a special count, and alleging parol variations. Defendants pleaded non assumpsit and payment with leave, etc. On the trial, plaintiff offered in evidence the sealed contract, dated June 8th, 1882.…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gordon
That the verbal alteration of a scaled contract makes the entire agreement, including the writing, parol, is a doctrine now so well established as to preclude all doubt or hesitation. Vicary v. Moore, 2 Watts, 451, has been regarded as a leading case, and has been steadily followed, down to the ease of Carrier & Baum v. Dilworth, 9 P. F. S., 406. But it is equally true, as stated in McManus v. Cassidy, 16 Id., 260, that when the eause of action arises on a sealed instrument, the form must be debt or covenant, and the exception is only where the specialty has been so far altered by parol as to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Vicary v. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
3Cited by1 opinion
- WM. C. Hamilton & Son v. HartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889