Case Name: Williams v. Aylesworth
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-09
Citations: 7 N.Y.S. 111
Docket Number: 
Parties: Williams v. Aylesworth.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 7
Pages: 111–114

Head Matter:
Williams v. Aylesworth.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.
September, 1889.)
Evidence—Parol, to Vary Writing.
, In an action on a note on which is indorsed, “I guaranty the collection of the
within note, ” evidence is not admissible to prove that defendant, at the time of indorsement, verbally warranted that the note was good, and would be paid at maturity. Martin, J., dissenting.
Appeal from circuit court.
Action by Hanson Williams against Eliphalefc Aylesworth on the following note: “$100.00. Peterboro, April 10th, 1875. Five years from date we jointly and severally promise to pay. E. Aylesworth, or bearer, the sum of one hundred dollars, with annual interest, for value received. Gurnsey 1 Hardy. Bertram.Hardy.” Indorsed: “Peterboro, March 9th, 1879. I guaranty the collection of the within note. E. Aylesworth. ” Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Argued before Hardin, P. J., and Martin and Merwin, JJ.
Smith & Haskell, for appellant. Tracy, McLennan & Ayling, for respondent.

Opinion:
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 paroi agreement on the same subject. Upon this ground I favor a reversal.
Hardin, P. J., concurs. For opinion, see 8 N. Y. Supp. 113.