Edison Electric Illuminating Co. v. Thacher

186 A.D. 966

This text of 186 A.D. 966 (Edison Electric Illuminating Co. v. Thacher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Edison Electric Illuminating Co. v. Thacher, 186 A.D. 966 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1918).

Opinion

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Thomas and Mills, JJ., concurred; Putnam and Kelly, JJ., dissented and voted to reverse the judgment and order appealed from and to grant a new trial, for the reason that the learned trial justice erred in excluding the letter written by defendant to plaintiff’s purchasing agent before the execution of the contract (Exhibit C for identification), which letter is specifically referred to in the written contract as “ Contractor’s quotation to the Purchasing Agent of March 31st, 1915,” upon the ground that such letter is admissible, not to vary or contradict the written contract, but to supply a patent omission as to the quantity of material to be furnished (Emmett v. Penoyer, 151 N. Y. 567, and cases there cited; Cooper v. Payne, 186 id 334.)

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

Related

Emmett v. . Penoyer
45 N.E. 1041 (New York Court of Appeals, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
186 A.D. 966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edison-electric-illuminating-co-v-thacher-nyappdiv-1918.