Sire v. Rumboldt

New York Court of Common Pleas

Sire v. Rumboldt

16 N.Y.S. 956, 41 N.Y. St. Rep. 954, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2350

DecidedDecember 7, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 16 N.Y.S. 956 (Sire v. Rumboldt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sire v. Rumboldt, 16 N.Y.S. 956, 41 N.Y. St. Rep. 954, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2350 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Bischoff, J.

The only question involved in the appeal herein was as to the admissibility of evidence of a contemporaneous paroi agreement, not inconsistent with the terms of a written instrument, to affect the latter. That such evidence is admissible was determined by the court of appeals in Chapin v. Dobson, 78 N. Y. 75, which we followed; reference to that case being made •in our opinion herein published in 14 N. Y. Supp. 925. Appellant’s counsel does not undertake to distinguish the present case from that of Chapin v. Dobson; and the only ground for this application—that the question herein determined by us is novel, and has not yet received the consideration of the .highest appellate court—is therefore untenable. The motion should be denied, with costs.

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

Bischoff, J.

The only question involved in the appeal herein was as to the admissibility of evidence of a contemporaneous paroi agreement, not inconsistent with the terms of a written instrument, to affect the latter. That such evidence is admissible was determined by the court of appeals in Chapin v. Dobson, 78 N. Y. 75, which we followed; reference to that case being made •in our opinion herein published in 14 N. Y. Supp. 925. Appellant’s counsel does not undertake to distinguish the present case from that of Chapin v. Dobson; and the only ground for this application—that the question herein determined by us is novel, and has not yet received the consideration of the .highest appellate court—is therefore untenable. The motion should be denied, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 N.Y.S. 956, 41 N.Y. St. Rep. 954, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sire-v-rumboldt-nyctcompl-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack