Case Name: JOHN HOFFMAN CO., Appellant, v. ROCHESTER CONSOL. MINING & MILLING CO., Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1898-07-26
Citations: 53 N.Y.S. 1106
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHN HOFFMAN CO., Appellant, v. ROCHESTER CONSOL. MINING & MILLING CO., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 53
Pages: 1106–1106

Head Matter:
JOHN HOFFMAN CO., Appellant, v. ROCHESTER CONSOL. MINING & MILLING CO., Respondent.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
July 26, 1898.)
Action by the John Hoffman Company against the Rochester Consolidated Mining & Milling Company.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with- costs to the appellant to abide the event. Held: (1) That the provisions contained in the note and .those contained in the mortgage being inconsistent, the provisions of the note must prevail. Rothchild v. Railway Co., 84 Hun, 103, 32 N. Y. Supp. 37. (2) The defendant could not exercise the option to extend the time of the payment of the note after suit brought so as to prejudice the right of the plaintiff. All concur, except WARD, J., who dissents.