Schultz v. Bradley (57 N.Y. 646, 1874)

New York Commission of Appeals 1874-01

Citations

Full opinion text

Reynolds, C.,

reads for reversal and new trial; Lott, Ch. C., and Gray, C., concur.

Earl, C.,

reads for affirmance; Johnson, C., concurs.

Lott, Ch. C.,

for reversal, on ground that the written contract could not be enlarged by an oral agreement, and that there was no acceptance of leather under the oral agreements. Judgment reversed; Earl and Johnson, CC., dissenting.