Mitchell v. Murray (213 N.Y. 669, 1914)

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Even if the original contract had not been under seal the evidence offered would not he sufficient to show that the same had been modified by a subsequent parol contract.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Collin, Cuddeback, Miller and Cardozo, JJ. Absent: Werner, J.