Case ID: ny_220/html/0710-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George E. Sims, Respondent, v. William Farson et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Farson, Son & Company, Appellants.
    
      Sims v. Farson, 162 App. Div. 426, affirmed.
    (Argued March 15, 1917;
    decided April 3, 1917.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court ■ in ■ the third judicial department, entered May 14, 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury. The action was brought by the plaintiff to compel the defendants to repurchase $2,000 of North Sterling irrigation district bonds purchased by the plaintiff from.the defendants in December, 1909, at par and accrued interest, under a repurchase agreement contained in a letter dated December 8, 1909,. written by the defendants to the plaintiff when negotiations were pending for the purchase of the bonds and which, after referring. to a telephone conversation between the parties, stated that the defendants would agree to repurchase the bonds at the selling price “if they do not fulfill all requirements.” The question in this case is whether the trial justice properly excluded evidence of the preceding communications between the parties, including the telephone 'conversation referred to in the letter, which was offered by the defendants to prove just what the requirements were which the bonds were to fulfill, i. c., to prove that the requirements were not the personal requirements of the plaintiff but requirements mutually agreed upon by the contracting parties.
    
      Alfred Gregory and E. J. Dimock for appellants.
    
      Lawrence Russell and William E. Sims for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Collin, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ. Dissenting: Hisoook, Ch. J., Oardozo and McLaughlin, JJ.