Case Name: Warren B. Collamer, Resp't, v. Albert H. Farrington, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-07-11
Citations: 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 591
Docket Number: 
Parties: Warren B. Collamer, Resp’t, v. Albert H. Farrington, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 39
Pages: 591–595

Head Matter:
Warren B. Collamer, Resp’t, v. Albert H. Farrington, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
Filed July 11, 1891.)
Evidence—Panol—To taut wbitten.
In an action by a landlord against the surety on a written lease for rent due, as therein provided, Held, that the defendant could not show as a set-off that the plaintiff had promised by a parol contemporaneous agreement to accept the fixtures placed on the premises by the lease on account of the rent, as such parol agreement was not collateral, but merged in the writing.
(Mayham, J., dissenting.)
Appeal from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee in favor of the plaintiff in an action brought- upon a contract of .suretyship for the performance of the conditions of a lease by a tenant.
The tenant’s certificate of hiring was in writing signed by him, and contained covenants to pay rent, and also some other agreements on the part of the tenant, but contained no agreement to be performed by the lessor. The surety contract signed by the defendant purported to be in consideration of the letting of the premises and of one dollar, and provided that the defendant become surety for the punctual payment of the rents and performance of the covenants in the certificate made by the lessee and in default agreed to pay and perform the same himself or any deficiency on the same. The answer alleged payment by the tenant, offsets in favor of the tenant against the plaintiff and the tenant’s insolvency, eviction of the tenant by the plaintiff, and a denial of some of the allegations of the complaint On the trial before the referee various questions as to the admissibility of evidence offered by the defendant were raised and exceptions taken to the ruling of the referee. The referee reported in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment was entered on his report, from which defendant appeals.
L. Varney (William H. McCall, of counsel), for app’lt; Will W. Smith, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Learned, P. J.
—This is an action by the landlord against the-surety on a lease. The defense is that the leasee, one Jacob H. Farrington, had been the tenant of the landlord for two years previous; that during those previous years the lessee had put certain fixtures in the premises; that when he was about to take the lease in question the plaintiff, as consideration therefor, promised that he would take said fixtures and pay for the same by allowing the value on the last payments which should come due on the lease.
In $ie trial before a referee, evidence was given by defendant of conversations tending to support this defense. Such evidence was objected to as varying the contents of a written instrument. The evidence was taken subject to this objection and was finally excluded by the referee. The question on this appeal is on the correctness of the referee's ruling in this respect.
It is claimed by the defendant that this ruling was incorrect on two grounds. First, that the general rule does not apply when only one side of the contract is in writing and the oral evidence tends to affect the other side; and, second, that such general rule-does not apply to collateral agreements.
The first of those grounds assumes that the landlord's part of the contract of lease was not in writing. The written instrument produced by plaintiff was that which is known as the tenant's part in a so-called landlord and tenant agreement This is a familiar agreement, one part of which is usually signed by the landlord, another by the tenant; each containing the agreements-of the respective parties. It was not necessary for the defendant, if not called upon, to produce the part of the agreement signed by the landlord, and no copy is in the case. But the objection to this evidence assumed that the landlord's part of the agreement was in writing. The referee's report seems to so state the fact. He says a written lease was executed by both parties. Certain findings of fact requested by the plaintiff imply this. It does not distinctly appear what was the response of the referee to these requests, but the defendant excepted to the referee's finding of the second and third of these requests, from which we may infer that they were found.
How, as it is not probable that the lessee would execute this part of the contract of lease without receiving the landlord's part executed by him, and as the form of this kind of lease is well known, we think that we must understand from the referee's report and from these other papers in the case that there was such a landlord's agreement, although it has not been printed in the case. If there had been no writing signed by the landlord the objection to oral evidence could hardly have been made. For there could have been no agreement in writing on the landlord's-part which the oral evidence could have tended to vary or contra- diet. In this view of the case the first ground of defendant's appeal fails.
The second ground is that the alleged oral agreement was collateral and therefore admissible.
Now it is to be noticed that the defendant cannot claim that these fixtures were a payment on the rent. The landlord refused to accept them, and caused them, or at least part of them, to be removed. Jacob H. Farrington testifies that all his fixtures were torn out and were in the middle of the floor. So that, assuming that the plaintiff made the agreement claimed by the defendant, he refused to perform it. While then he may be liable on his refusal for damages caused thereby to the lessee, he cannot be correctly said to have received payment of the rent. Of course if he had received payment, either in money or in anything else accepted as payment, this would have been a credit on the amount payable on the lease. But if he only made an agreement that he would accept certain things in payment, which agreement he afterwards refused to perform, this can give the lease only a counterclaim. The lessee is not bound to assert his damages in an action on the lease. The lessee still has his property and can recover only damages for the breach of the agreement to purchase. Or if the lessor unlawfully retains any of this property and refused to pay the lessee therefor, then the lessor may be liable to the lessee. Hence the surety cannot assert this defense. The plaintiff has not been paid. The surety cannot set up this counterclaim which belongs to the lessee. Gillespie v. Torrance, 25 N. Y., 306. Whether on a proper allegation in the answer of the lessee's insolvency an equitable set-off of this claim might not be allowed, we need not say. But to such a claim to set off in equity this-.claim of the lessee, the lessee himself would be a necessary party; because the claim belongs to him and he cannot be deprived of it. without his consent or without his being heard.
The judgment, therefore, is right and is affirmed, with costs.