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 in the spring of 1924. A written contract for the sale of the farm was executed, but it did not include any mention of the ice house removal. 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 the written contract appears complete on its face and does not include the oral promise, under the parol evidence rule?

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 the oral agreement did not meet the criteria for an exception to the parol evidence rule.

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 expect to embody in the writing, meaning the written contract does not appear to contain the entire agreement.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

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