Strom v. Dongan

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Strom v. Dongan

31 Misc. 754, 64 N.Y.S. 57

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Misc. 754 (Strom v. Dongan) 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

Strom v. Dongan, 31 Misc. 754, 64 N.Y.S. 57 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We think that the proper construction of the written contract between the parties called for the filing with the building department of plans which were reasonably free from objection and acceptable to the department. It will be observed that the plaintiff was bound by the very terms of the contract to obtain from the department a permit for the construction of the building. This, it is apparent, he could not do, unless the plans for construction were acceptable; so that there is internal evidence, within the four corners of the written agreement, which, disregarding the oral evidence that was admitted upon the subject, supports the construction which the court below has adopted.

As the plaintiff has not as yet complied with the condition, as we construe the agreement, upon which his right to the first installment of Ms compensation depends, it follows that the judgment dismissing his complaint must be affirmed.

Present: Beekmar, P. J., Giegeeioh and O’Goemar, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

We think that the proper construction of the written contract between the parties called for the filing with the building department of plans which were reasonably free from objection and acceptable to the department. It will be observed that the plaintiff was bound by the very terms of the contract to obtain from the department a permit for the construction of the building. This, it is apparent, he could not do, unless the plans for construction were acceptable; so that there is internal evidence, within the four corners of the written agreement, which, disregarding the oral evidence that was admitted upon the subject, supports the construction which the court below has adopted.

As the plaintiff has not as yet complied with the condition, as we construe the agreement, upon which his right to the first installment of Ms compensation depends, it follows that the judgment dismissing his complaint must be affirmed.

Present: Beekmar, P. J., Giegeeioh and O’Goemar, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Misc. 754, 64 N.Y.S. 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strom-v-dongan-nyappterm-1900.