LAW.coLAW.co

Partridge v. Clarke

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania1846-11-02
4 Pa. 166

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

Per Curiam.

It is not easy to perceive any contradiction in the charge, or error of any sort. It is true that the alteration of a specialty by parol makes the whole a new contract by parol; but it is also true, that a part of a specialty omitted by mistake may be supplied by parol evidence, and that the plaintiff may recover on the entire contract, as a specialty, just as if nothing had been omitted. Such was the direction, and we see nothing wrong in it.

Judgment affirmed.