Case ID: ny-st-rep_67/html/0673-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Cullen, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Interstate Steamboat Company, App’lt, v. First National Bank of Syracuse et al., Resp'ts.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed May 13, 1895.)
    
    Evidence — Parol.
    An oral agreement between the parties, made prior to or at the time of executing a written agreement for the construction of a ship, requiring it to be completed before title passes to the purchasers, by which the title to the ship was to pass from the inception of the work, is not admissible.
    Appeal from a judgment, entered on a nonsuit.
    
      Henry G. Harris, for app’lt; Gill & Stillwell (H. B. Closson) of counsel, for resp’t.
   Cullen, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant entered .upon a nonsuit at circuit. The Cowles Engineering Company entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for the construction of a steamboat to be delivered at Brooklyn. The boat was launched unfinished. They were in the yard of the Cowles Company two boilers, a steering wheel, and some lumber intended to complete the construction of the steamboat, but not yet placed in her. The defendants were creditors of the Cowles Company, and obtained attachments against that company. The sheriff levied on the articles named. The plaintiff brought this action to recover the property, and the attaching creditors were substituted as defendants in place of the sheriff. The plaintiff took no exception to the ruling of the court dismissing the complaint, and no motion was made for a new trial. We are hence without power to review the decision below in this respect. We may say, however, that we see nothing in the contract for the construction of this steamer to take the case out of rule decided in Andrews v. Durant, 11 N. Y. 35, that title does not vest in an article to be manufactured until finished and delivered, or ready for delivery, and approved by the party for whom it is to be constructed. Nor can the law of Pennsylvania apply to this case, as the contract was to be performed in this state. Dyke v. Railwuy Co., 45 N. Y. 113 ; Curtis v. Railroad Co., 74 id. 116.

The only point properly raised by exception is as to the exclusion of evidence to show an oral agreement between the parties prior to or at the time of the execution of the written agreement, by which title to the property was, from the inception of the work, to vest in the plaintiff. We think this evidence properly excluded. If admitted, it would have altered and modified the effect of the written agreement. By the written agreement, under the law as we have construed it, the destruction of the vessel by fire or accident would not have relieved the construction from its obligation to perform the contract; the loss would have-fallen upon it. Under the oral agreement that the title should be-in the plaintiff the destruction of the boat without fault on the part of the builder would relieve it from such obligation, and the loss fall upon the plaintiff. The evidence was therefore incompetent. Engelhorn v. Reitlinger, 122 N. Y. 76; 33 St. Rep. 275; Case v. Bridge Co., 134 N. Y. 78; 45 St. Rep. 603. There is the further criticism to be made on the evidence excluded; it is doubtful whether the offer to prove went beyond the question of the title of the vessel itself. The articles in suit had not become any part of the vessel.

The judgment- appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.