Bopp v. Atkins

New York Court of Common Pleas

Bopp v. Atkins

10 N.Y.S. 539, 31 N.Y. St. Rep. 555, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 842

DecidedJune 2, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 10 N.Y.S. 539 (Bopp v. Atkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bopp v. Atkins, 10 N.Y.S. 539, 31 N.Y. St. Rep. 555, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 842 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Bookstaver, J.

Action to recover the value of certain chattels alleged by the plaintiff to have been conveyed by the defendant to him with a house and lot in West Forty-Fourth street. The contract of sale was in writing, and at the time of its execution something was said about certain articles, as carpets, gas fixtures, etc.; but when the contract was drawn up it entirely omitted any reference to these articles. Nevertheless, on the trial, plaintiff was allowed to give evidence as to the conversation before the signing of the contract, and judgment was rendered in plaintiff’s favor for their value. This we think was error. The rule was elementary. When the parties, deliberately put their agreement in writing in such terms as import a legal obligation, without any uncertainty as to the object or extent of such engagements, it is conclusively presumed that the whole engagement of the parties, and the extent and manner of their undertaking, was reduced to writing, and all oral testimony of particular conversations should be rejected. 1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 275, 276. From the evidence admitted it seems clear that the carpets, etc., were intended to go with the house; but they were not included in the contract, and the plaintiff has mistaken his remedy, which should have been an action to reform the contract. The judgment should therefore be reversed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bookstaver, J.

Action to recover the value of certain chattels alleged by the plaintiff to have been conveyed by the defendant to him with a house and lot in West Forty-Fourth street. The contract of sale was in writing, and at the time of its execution something was said about certain articles, as carpets, gas fixtures, etc.; but when the contract was drawn up it entirely omitted any reference to these articles. Nevertheless, on the trial, plaintiff was allowed to give evidence as to the conversation before the signing of the contract, and judgment was rendered in plaintiff’s favor for their value. This we think was error. The rule was elementary. When the parties, deliberately put their agreement in writing in such terms as import a legal obligation, without any uncertainty as to the object or extent of such engagements, it is conclusively presumed that the whole engagement of the parties, and the extent and manner of their undertaking, was reduced to writing, and all oral testimony of particular conversations should be rejected. 1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 275, 276. From the evidence admitted it seems clear that the carpets, etc., were intended to go with the house; but they were not included in the contract, and the plaintiff has mistaken his remedy, which should have been an action to reform the contract. The judgment should therefore be reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 N.Y.S. 539, 31 N.Y. St. Rep. 555, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bopp-v-atkins-nyctcompl-1890.