Mitchill v. Lath

160 N.E. 646 · New York Court of Appeals · 1928

Facts

The Laths owned a farm and an ice house on neighboring land. Mrs. Mitchill agreed to purchase the farm after the Laths orally promised to remove the objectionable ice house by spring 1924. A written contract for the sale of the farm was executed, but it did not include the promise to remove the ice house. The Laths subsequently failed to remove the ice house.

Issue

Can an oral agreement, made as an inducement to a written contract for the sale of land, be enforced when it is not included in the written contract and the written contract appears to be a complete agreement?

Holding

No, the oral agreement to remove the ice house cannot be enforced. The court reversed the lower courts' decisions and dismissed the complaint, finding that the oral agreement did not meet the conditions for admitting parol evidence to vary a written contract.

Rule

For an oral agreement to be admitted to vary a written contract, it must be collateral in form, not contradict the written contract, and be one that parties would not ordinarily be expected to embody in the writing, or not be so closely connected to the principal transaction as to be part and parcel of it.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-04-27. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.