Ellis v. Seaman

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ellis v. Seaman

23 Misc. 758, 50 N.Y.S. 685

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 23 Misc. 758 (Ellis v. Seaman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ellis v. Seaman, 23 Misc. 758, 50 N.Y.S. 685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is no question of fraud or warranty in the case. The only issue raised by the pleadings and exceptions is with respect to the terms of the contract and-its performance. What the agreement was is evidenced- by the- written order'which was given for the advertisements in question.' It .contained .all of [759]*759the elements of a complete contract, and, under familiar principles, cannot be enlarged or varied by parol evidence. The only matter which remains to be considered is whether there was a substantial performance with respect to the quality of the work. This was a question of fact which it was peculiarly within the province of the court below to determine, and we cannot say that such. determination was so plainly against the weight of evidence as to justify us in reversing the judgment. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Present: Beekmah, ;P. J., Gildersleeve and Giegerioh, JJ.

'Judgment affirmed, with costs..

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

Per Curiam.

There is no question of fraud or warranty in the case. The only issue raised by the pleadings and exceptions is with respect to the terms of the contract and-its performance. What the agreement was is evidenced- by the- written order'which was given for the advertisements in question.' It .contained .all of [759]*759the elements of a complete contract, and, under familiar principles, cannot be enlarged or varied by parol evidence. The only matter which remains to be considered is whether there was a substantial performance with respect to the quality of the work. This was a question of fact which it was peculiarly within the province of the court below to determine, and we cannot say that such. determination was so plainly against the weight of evidence as to justify us in reversing the judgment. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Present: Beekmah, ;P. J., Gildersleeve and Giegerioh, JJ.

'Judgment affirmed, with costs..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Misc. 758, 50 N.Y.S. 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellis-v-seaman-nyappterm-1898.