The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-08-29
Supreme COurt-Special Term,
HnfArn Inra Ind Roo axroLf

AUG. 2s.-DEcIsloNs john Lobagh abraham l. La
tagh and oersTbc defendant Forsyth Labagh. did not
forfeit the buildings put by him the premises held
in common. He may be liable for damages to his
owners, should they sustain by his omission to
the buildings within the time stipulated but the
buildings still his property-and being joint owner
of the ground he mny TO them without
shat he be at liberty any time within days after
the sale if not done before to the buildings and
that the los be sold subject to that reservation.
George $, Eidridge Thomas Rogers The plaintiff
sues, as owner. by assignment Of contract The de-
fence, far it need nov be considered is substantially
that the with the plaintiff assignor
with him agent the Telegraph Company; that
the promised payment of 500 intended for their
and not his, benefit and that the amount has actually
been paid accordingly to the company This statement
If true, and admissible by the rules of law is clearly
just and conclusive answer to tho pl'intifs action
The plaintiff for the purposes of the argument, by de
murring admits the truth but denies the admssibty
Of the defendants alcga contendiDg that his adver
ssry contrary TO wei! established rule OF law ana seek
ing TO vary. contradict or explain by parol proof
written I'M trument. As general principle this
not be done. The conversations and negotiations
Of the parties antecedent to or simultaneous with writ
ten agreement, merged in the writing That is
garded containing and as the best evidence of their
true, entire ana final understanding And all expert
well in life courts illustrates and
confirms the policy Of the rule But like other rules IL
has it's qualifications exceptions facts CO.
temperate history commercial local having
beering on the transaction, may always be So
also Gays Phillips 56l) "Paro evidence is admissible
to show that written contract purporting to be made
between and Il, seller and buyer in made by
b. not on his account, but agent Of third per-
scN" In the case OF W llsOn Hart Report,
304 Justice Parke 1t is the constant
show. by paro evidence whether contracting party is
agent principal The OF the Mechanics Bank "
the Bank of Columbia % Wheltous Reports $3.50 related
to a check drawn by William Patton. Jr.. in his
name without the addition Of Cashier On full argument
the Supreme Court at Washington held that il
peten to prove that Patton in fact Cashier Of
Mechanics Bank and that, although signing only his in
dyidual nsme he did the act in his character Of agent
The answer Ill the present case may not be drawn with
stict technical precision It's defects If any in that
spect should have been corrected by molten They
hat nty y1fagan Ia fhn
question whether in substance, the facts alleged IL
United duly proved would be sufficient to constitute
defence to the action AS in the opinion of the Court
they clearly would be- the demurrer be overrued
and judgment given for the defendant with liberty
nevertheless to the plaintiff il so advised payment OF
costs 10 reply provided he do in twenty daye after
lice Of this decision.
In The matter If opening 1loh street. from Fourth to Eighth
artaue. an Ire City If New York The commissioners
roniira ed