Nicholas v. McIntire

New York Supreme Court

Nicholas v. McIntire

21 N.Y.S. 67, 48 N.Y. St. Rep. 314, 65 Hun 624

DecidedOctober 21, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 21 N.Y.S. 67 (Nicholas v. McIntire) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nicholas v. McIntire, 21 N.Y.S. 67, 48 N.Y. St. Rep. 314, 65 Hun 624 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

LEWIS, J.

The claim of-the plaintiff for damages for breach of the contract to furnish him employment was established by the evidence. The lease to Armstrong furnished a good consideration for the promise of defendants to employ the plaintiff. The breach of the agreement on the part of the defendants, and the damages sustained, were proven.

The terms of defendants’ guaranty that Armstrong would perform the covenants of the lease are sufficiently broad to cover the payment of the rent up till January 1, 1891, and also any damages which might follow by the failure of Armstrong to leave the premises in as'good condition as they were when taken.

The rent Armstrong paid, but he failed to perform the covenant as to repairs. If the words appended to the guaranty, to wit, “to the amount of five hundred and sixty dollars, or until January the first, 1891,” are to be construed as limiting the defendants’ liability for the payment of rent that should accrue by the 1st of January, 1891, it did not relieve them from their liability to pay damages for the breach of Armstrong’s covenant in regard to repairs. The paroi evidence shows that the defendants agreed to guaranty that Armstrong should perform the last-mentioned covenant; and, if the clause quoted created any ambiguity, it was proper to resort to paroi evidence to relieve the guaranty of such ambiguity. Dodge v. Zimmer, 110 N. Y. 43, 17 N. E. Rep. 399, The report of the referee is sustainéd by the evidence, and we find no reason for a reversal of the judgment.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed. All concur.

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

LEWIS, J.

The claim of-the plaintiff for damages for breach of the contract to furnish him employment was established by the evidence. The lease to Armstrong furnished a good consideration for the promise of defendants to employ the plaintiff. The breach of the agreement on the part of the defendants, and the damages sustained, were proven.

The terms of defendants’ guaranty that Armstrong would perform the covenants of the lease are sufficiently broad to cover the payment of the rent up till January 1, 1891, and also any damages which might follow by the failure of Armstrong to leave the premises in as'good condition as they were when taken.

The rent Armstrong paid, but he failed to perform the covenant as to repairs. If the words appended to the guaranty, to wit, “to the amount of five hundred and sixty dollars, or until January the first, 1891,” are to be construed as limiting the defendants’ liability for the payment of rent that should accrue by the 1st of January, 1891, it did not relieve them from their liability to pay damages for the breach of Armstrong’s covenant in regard to repairs. The paroi evidence shows that the defendants agreed to guaranty that Armstrong should perform the last-mentioned covenant; and, if the clause quoted created any ambiguity, it was proper to resort to paroi evidence to relieve the guaranty of such ambiguity. Dodge v. Zimmer, 110 N. Y. 43, 17 N. E. Rep. 399, The report of the referee is sustainéd by the evidence, and we find no reason for a reversal of the judgment.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 N.Y.S. 67, 48 N.Y. St. Rep. 314, 65 Hun 624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicholas-v-mcintire-nysupct-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack