Case Name: Hanson Williams, Resp't, v. Eliphalet Aylesworth, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-09-19
Citations: 26 N.Y. St. Rep. 13
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hanson Williams, Resp’t, v. Eliphalet Aylesworth, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 26
Pages: 13–19

Head Matter:
Hanson Williams, Resp’t, v. Eliphalet Aylesworth, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department,
Filed September 19, 1889.)
1. Payment — Charge.
Where it is assumed upon trial that a purchase of goods and the delivery of the note of a third person were contemporaneous, it is error to charge that “ when a creditor accepts from a debtor the note of a third person to apply upon a precedent debt, the law presumes it not in satisfaction of the debt, and the burden of proof is upon the debtor io show that it was taken in payment.” Under such circumstances the presumption is that it was taken in payment, and the burden of proving the contrary rests upon the creditor. Per Hardin, P. J.; Martin, J., dissents.
3. Evidence — Not admissible to vary written agreement.
Defendant delivered to plaintiff the note of a third person, and executed upon it a written guaranty of its collection. Held, that evidence that he also verbally warranted that the note was good and would be paid at maturity varied the written guaranty, and was therefore inadmissible. Per Merwin, J.; Martin, J., dissents.
Verdict in the county court of Madison county. Appeal from the judgment entered thereon. The complaint sets out the-fact that the plaintiff sold to the defendant certain personal property amounting in value to some $122. The complaint alleges-that the plaintiff paid $15.74 “in cash thereon;” and it also alleges “ and for the purpose of paying or securing the balance of his said indebtedness to plaintiff, the said defendant guaranteed and delivered to this plaintiff a certain promissory note, of which the following is a copy:
“ $100.00 Peterboro, April 10, 1875.
“ Five years from date we jointly and severally promise to pay to E. Aylsworth, or bearer, the sum of one hundred dollars with., annual interest, for value received.
“GURHSEY HARDY. “BERTRAM HARDY.”
That before the delivery of said note to plaintiff, and as an express condition of plaintiff’s accepting the same, said defendant guaranteed the collection of said note, in writing on the back thereof, as follows, viz.:
“ Peterblo, March 9, 1879.
“ I guarantee the collection of the within note.
“E. AYLESWORTH.”
The complaint further alleges “ that at the time of said delivery of said note to this plaintiff, the said defendant represented, promised and agreed that said note was good and that the said makers thereof would pay the same at maturity.” Fol. 195. The complaint also contained a separate and another cause of action for property sold and delivered to the defendant.
The answer of the defendant alleges the purchase of certain personal property on the 9th of March, 1879, of the plaintiff; and alleges that on the 15th day of April, 1879, the defendant “fully-paid and discharged said indebtedness.” And the answer further alleges, that on the 15th day of April, 1879, the defendant “ sold and delivered said note to the plaintiff, said plaintiff at the time-paying to said defendant the sum of $3,75 in money, that being the difference between the amount due upon said note, and the amount of this defendant’s said indebtedness to plaintiff.” It also avers the guarantee of the collection. It denies the representations alleged, and it also sets up the loches of the plaintiff in respect to the guarantee of collection.
After the plaintiff’s evidence had been introduced, a motion was made in his behalf to conform the complaint to the facts shown, and also to set out more fully the representations in respect to the Hardy note. And further “ that the note was taken and accepted by Mr. Williams relying upon that statement and believing it to be true. That the statement at the time was in fact untrue; that Mr. Hardy was not the owner of a farm entirely paid for, and that he was not good but was in fact worthless.” Fol. 90. An objection was taken to the motion for an amendment, and it was allowed, and the defendant excepted,
J. E. Smith, for app’lt; William G. Tracy, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Hardin, P. J.
Conflicting evidence is found in the appeal book on the questions of fact presented to the jury. Among other questions submitted to the jury by the trial judge was the one as to whether or not the plaintiff could recover for the value of the property sold to the defendant, and connected with that question was submitted the inquiry as to whether or no the plaintiff accepted the Hardy note in discharge of the indebtedness or not. There was a conflict in the evidence in that regard; the defendant maintaining that the Hardy note was delivered with the guarantee of collection in payment and satisfaction, or in exchange for the property which he received of the plaintiff.
The trial judge in the course of his charge stated as follows: " I should say to you that when a creditor accepts from a debtor a note of a third person, to apply upon a precedent debt, the law presumes it not in satisfaction of the debt, and the burden of proof is upon a debtor to show that it was taken in payment, and satisfaction of the debt. This is the presumption the law raises in a case where a man lets another have a note of a third person to apply upon a debt which he then owes the person to whom he transferred the note." The defendant's counsel took an exception to that portion of the charge which we have quoted.
It seems to have been assumed at the trial that the delivery of the Hardy note was contemporaneous with the purchase of the property or contracting of the debt to the plaintiff. Under such circumstances the presumption is that the Hardy note "was agreed to be taken in payment and the burden of proving the contrary rests on the creditor." Noel v. Murray, 13 N. Y., 168.
In Gibson v. Tobey, 53 Barb., 195, Marvin, J., said: "The fact of a simultaneous exchange is the evidence from which the agreement is presumed. This presumption is not conclusive. The party taking the note may show that it was not the agreement that he should take the note at his own risk, in exchange for his property." He followed the doctrine which he had laid down in Noel v. Murray, supra, fourteen years previous. The conclusion reached, however, was reversed by the court of appeals, as appears by Gibson v. Tobey, 46 N. Y., 637; however, not upon the question referred to in the quotation which we have just made from Judge Marvin's opinion.
In 46 N. Y., 643, in delivering the opinion in t Gibson v. Tobey, Church, Ch. J., said: "And when a creditor has an option, to receive money or a note of a third party, and he accepts the latter, it will be presumed that he receives it with the same effect as if he had received the money. St. John v. Purdy, 1 Sand. S. C. R., 9.
If the jury found that the note of the Hardys was not received in payment, and, therefore, the defendant was indebted for the purchase-price of the property sold, their conclusion may have been influenced by the language of the charge which we have quoted; therefore the defendant may have been prejudiced by the language used by the trial judge. We are not warranted by anything found in the appeal book in concluding that the error found in the charge did not prejudice the defendant. Of course it is possible to conjecture that the verdict of the jury was placed upon other ground which was litigated.
These views lead to a new trial.
Judgment reversed on the exceptions and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.
Merwin, J.
The plaintiff was allowed to prove, in substance, that the defendant verbally warranted that the note was good and would be paid at maturity.
This varied the written agreement represented by the written-guaranty of collection. In Van Brunt v. Day, 81 N. Y., 251, a paroi agreement was allowed to be shown, because it did not qualify or change the defendant's written guaranty. In the present case, it would, and therefore would be inadmissible.
There is, I think, as the case stands, no question of fraud in it.. That question is not presented by the pleadings, and was not submitted to the jury. In the absence of fraud, the writing cannot, be contradicted or varied. The plaintiff had, as the court held, lost by his loches his remedy on the written guaranty. He should not, in order to avoid this result, be allowed to prove an inconsistent parol agreement on the same subject. Upon this ground,, I favor a reversal.