Case Name: Leslie Levi, Doing Business as Ivel Process Company, Appellant, v. L. A. Thompson Scenic Railway Company, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1926-12-15
Citations: 128 Misc. 465
Docket Number: 
Parties: Leslie Levi, Doing Business as Ivel Process Company, Appellant, v. L. A. Thompson Scenic Railway Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 128
Pages: 465–466

Head Matter:
Leslie Levi, Doing Business as Ivel Process Company, Appellant, v. L. A. Thompson Scenic Railway Company, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
December 15, 1926.
Hays, Podell & Shulman [Mortimer Hays of counsel], for the appellant.
Hollinger & Cormier [Victor C. Cormier of counsel], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Since the agreement in suit is on its face a complete contract, separate and distinct from the agreement regarding the Hippodrome scene, it was error to admit evidence confusing the two separate contracts and regarding them as one agreement. The breach of a contract separate and distinct from the one in suit cannot be interposed as a defense to the agreement that is being litigated in the case at bar. (Dixon & Co. v. Bronston Bros. & Co., 171 App. Div. 552.)
Defendant's Exhibit M should have been excluded from the evidence, since it is not a contract between the parties and it in itself tends to vary the terms of the contracts Exhibit I and Exhibit B.
Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.
All concur; present, Bijur, O'Malley and Levy, JJ.