Case ID: nys_16/html/0956-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bischoff, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sire, Appellant, v. Rumboldt et al., Respondents
    
      (Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.
    
    December 7, 1891.)
    Motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals. For former reports, see 11 N. Y. Supp. 784; 14 N. Y. Supp. 925.
    Argued before Daly, C. J., and Bischoff and Pryor, JJ.
    
      A. J. Sire, for appellant. Abram Kling, for respondents.
   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.