Lawes Coal Co. v. Englander

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Lawes Coal Co. v. Englander

179 Misc. 956, 40 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1683

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 16, 1943

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 179 Misc. 956 (Lawes Coal Co. v. Englander) 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

Lawes Coal Co. v. Englander, 179 Misc. 956, 40 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1683 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendants’ parol evidence of delivery of the written agreement in escrow upon an unperformed condition, admitted over plaintiff’s objection, tended to vary the clear, concise, unambiguous, written' agreement in which defendants [957]*957“ hereby unconditionally agree to pay the obligation ” et cetera. Such parol evidence was inadmissible. (Camp v. Horn, 208 App. Div. 122; Thomas v. Scutt, 127 N. Y. 133.) In addition, the alleged oral escrow agreement testified to by defendant Eng-lander was unsupported by any other evidence. It was denied by every other person who was present at the creditors’ meeting when the agreement was made and who testified at the trial, including the alleged escrow agent who was one of the several attorneys who represented the various parties.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff as prayed for in the complaint, with interest and costs.

McCook and Hammer, JJ., concur. Rosenman, J.: I concur in the result on the ground that the judgment was clearly against the weight of the evidence.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendants’ parol evidence of delivery of the written agreement in escrow upon an unperformed condition, admitted over plaintiff’s objection, tended to vary the clear, concise, unambiguous, written' agreement in which defendants [957]*957“ hereby unconditionally agree to pay the obligation ” et cetera. Such parol evidence was inadmissible. (Camp v. Horn, 208 App. Div. 122; Thomas v. Scutt, 127 N. Y. 133.) In addition, the alleged oral escrow agreement testified to by defendant Eng-lander was unsupported by any other evidence. It was denied by every other person who was present at the creditors’ meeting when the agreement was made and who testified at the trial, including the alleged escrow agent who was one of the several attorneys who represented the various parties.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff as prayed for in the complaint, with interest and costs.

McCook and Hammer, JJ., concur. Rosenman, J.: I concur in the result on the ground that the judgment was clearly against the weight of the evidence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 Misc. 956, 40 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawes-coal-co-v-englander-nyappterm-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack