Ganger, Inc. v. Angeli

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ganger, Inc. v. Angeli

159 Misc. 464, 287 N.Y.S. 948, 1936 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1151

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 28, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 159 Misc. 464 (Ganger, Inc. v. Angeli) 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

Ganger, Inc. v. Angeli, 159 Misc. 464, 287 N.Y.S. 948, 1936 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1151 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The trial judge erred in admitting oral evidence of conversations claimed to have been had prior to the execution and delivery of the written contract. Even with that evidence in the case the finding that the so-called item one of the contract was for the delivery of round top tables, not square tables, is clearly contrary to the terms of the contract calling for the furnishing of two “ 36 x 36 ” tables. Further, the decision of this controversy is governed by the “ special agreement ” of the parties (Pers. Prop. Law, § 125, subd. 4), not by subdivisions 1 and 3 of that section held to be controlling in Portfolio v. Rubin (233 N. Y. 439).

Judgment reversed, with costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff for the possession of the chattels retained by defendants, with costs.

All concur. Present — Ltdon, Hammer and Frankenthaler, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The trial judge erred in admitting oral evidence of conversations claimed to have been had prior to the execution and delivery of the written contract. Even with that evidence in the case the finding that the so-called item one of the contract was for the delivery of round top tables, not square tables, is clearly contrary to the terms of the contract calling for the furnishing of two “ 36 x 36 ” tables. Further, the decision of this controversy is governed by the “ special agreement ” of the parties (Pers. Prop. Law, § 125, subd. 4), not by subdivisions 1 and 3 of that section held to be controlling in Portfolio v. Rubin (233 N. Y. 439).

Judgment reversed, with costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff for the possession of the chattels retained by defendants, with costs.

All concur. Present — Ltdon, Hammer and Frankenthaler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 Misc. 464, 287 N.Y.S. 948, 1936 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ganger-inc-v-angeli-nyappterm-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack