Elsas v. Gallagher

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Elsas v. Gallagher

34 Misc. 772, 68 N.Y.S. 839

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 34 Misc. 772 (Elsas v. Gallagher) 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

Elsas v. Gallagher, 34 Misc. 772, 68 N.Y.S. 839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

O’Gorman, J.

The complaint is for goods sold and delivered, and the answer is a general denial. Upon the trial the sale and the delivery of the goods and nonpayment of the balance claimed were substantially conceded. The defendant claimed, however, that his freight charges on the goods in question were eighty-nine dollars and forty-seven cents more than they should be, and that this excess was caused by careless conduct of the plaintiff’s assignor in the method employed in forwarding shipments. This defense was not available under the pleadings, but waiving that point it does not seem to-be supported by the evidence. The defendant bases his contention upon certain alleged oral promises made by an employee of the plaintiff’s assignor, but the engagements of the parties were in writing and could not be affected by prior or contemporaneous oral promises or negotiations. The judgment in the court below was proper and must be affirmed.

Andrews, P. J., and Blanchard, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

O’Gorman, J.

The complaint is for goods sold and delivered, and the answer is a general denial. Upon the trial the sale and the delivery of the goods and nonpayment of the balance claimed were substantially conceded. The defendant claimed, however, that his freight charges on the goods in question were eighty-nine dollars and forty-seven cents more than they should be, and that this excess was caused by careless conduct of the plaintiff’s assignor in the method employed in forwarding shipments. This defense was not available under the pleadings, but waiving that point it does not seem to-be supported by the evidence. The defendant bases his contention upon certain alleged oral promises made by an employee of the plaintiff’s assignor, but the engagements of the parties were in writing and could not be affected by prior or contemporaneous oral promises or negotiations. The judgment in the court below was proper and must be affirmed.

Andrews, P. J., and Blanchard, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Misc. 772, 68 N.Y.S. 839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elsas-v-gallagher-nyappterm-1901.