Philips & Butler v. Rose
Philips & Butler v. Rose
8 Johns. 392
Opinion of the Court
This case falls precisely within that of Little v. Holland, in the K. B. (3 Term Rep. 590.) The contract must be proved, as it is laid, otherwise the defendant has no notice of what he is called upon to answer. Evidence that the contract was enlarged by parol agreement, will not support the declaration.
Judgment of nonsuit.
See Keating v. Price, (1 Johns. Cas. 23.)
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.