Case Name: HORATIO M. DOTY, Respondent, v. LEMON THOMSON, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1886-01
Citations: 46 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 243
Docket Number: 
Parties: HORATIO M. DOTY, Respondent, v. LEMON THOMSON, Appellant.
Judges: Landon, J\, concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 46
Pages: 243–247

Head Matter:
HORATIO M. DOTY, Respondent, v. LEMON THOMSON, Appellant.
Evidence — when a written contract cannot be varied by parol evidence.
Upon the trial of this action, brought by the plaintiff, as owner of a canal boat, to recover from, the defendant damages, in the nature of demurrage, for delaj' in discharging the cargo. It appeared that at the time the goods were delivered to the plaintiff there was given to him a written instrument, signed by the defendant, containing a description of the goods, the place of shipment and of destination, the mode of carriage, the name of the consignee, the price to be paid and the amount advanced to the captain. Upon the trial the plaintiff was allowed, against the defendant’s objection and exception, to prove that the defendant had agreed, as part of the contract, to unload the boat, at its destination, at his own cost, except that the plaintiff was to pay the cost of shoveling the cargo into the vessels into which it was to be removed.
Held, that the court erred in receiving the evidence, as the parties were bound by the written agreement. (Bocees, J., dissenting.)
Gage v. Jaqueth (1 Laus.,207) overruled; GoviU v. Rill (4 Den., 323) distinguished.
Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the report of a referee.
The action was brought by the plaintiff, as owner of a canal boat, to recover from the defendant for freight and towage and damages by way of demurrage for delay in unloading the boat.
TJpon the trial the plaintiff, to prove the contract of affreightment, introduced in evidence two shipping bills, one signed by the defendant’s agent, which is as follows:
“Thomson’s Mill, Saratoga Dam, N. Y., June 9, 1882.
“ Shipped by Lemon Thomson on board of canal boat Thos. Shallow, Captain H. Doty, the following property in good order, ■to be delivered in like good order as consigned in the margin.
“ For Knickerbocker Ice Co., Charles H. Yan Zandt, Agt-., Albany, N. Y., 80-]-§£ Cds. sawdust.
“ To be reshipped.
“Pay Capt. freight on safe delivery, one dollar twelve one-half cents per ton, less forty-eight and dollars advanced Capt.
“ Forty-eight and dollars advanced Capt.
“LEMON THOMSON.
“B.”
The referee found and decided, upon oral evidence offered by the plaintiff and duly objected to by the defendant, that the real contract between the plaintiff and defendant was that the defendant ^ would discharge the cargo and that the plaintiff would pay for so much of the labor of discharging the same as consisted in shoveling it into the vessels in which it was to be removed from the boat, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the full amount of freight as specified in said shipping bills, less the amount admitted to have been paid, and less ten dollars and fifty cents allowed defendant for such shoveling.
The referee also found and decided that, by reason of the neglect of the defendant’s consignee, the boat was delayed in discharging her cargo four days beyond a reasonable and customary time for discharging like cargoes, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover ■therefor at the rate of ten dollars per day.
J. Lawson, for the appellant.
Llyland c& Zabrisltie, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Learned, P. J.:
When a writing appears to be intended to express the whole contract, oral evidence cannot be admitted to prove an undertaking necessarily connected therewith, and one of the elements of the contract. (Eighmie v. Taylor, 98 N. Y., 288.)
The written paper in this case contains a description of the goods, the place of shipment, the place of destination, the mode of carriage, the name of the consignee, the pri&e to be paid, the part of the price which had been paid. It contains, therefoi'e, every one of the elements of the contract for carrying the goods. To show a verbal arrangement about towage and unloading was in conflict with a settled rule of law.
But the plaintiff insists that this paper was not binding on plaintiff, because signed only by the defendant. And the plaintiff relies on Gage v. Jaqueth (1 Lans., 207), where the court say that no person is bound upon a written contract unless he has signed it. But this cannot be correct. The cases are numerous to the contrary. A few are: Putnam v. Furnam (71 N. Y., 590); Long v. New York Central Railroad Company (50 id., 76); Hinckley v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company (56 id., 429); Belger v. Dinsmore (51 id., 166); White v. Ashton (51 id., 280). [Receipts given by railroad companies and accepted by the shipper have been held to bind him so that he could not prove a different contract.
Would it be claimed in this present case that the plaintiff could have proved by parol a different rate of freight than that specified in the writing ? Was he not bound to do the freighting for the price mentioned in the paper specifying the terms, which was delivered to him with the cargo and accepted by him ? Could he prove by parol that instead of delivering the cargo at Albany as specified in the writing he was to deliver it at Cohoes ? Certainly not. If the paper specified all the terms of the contract and was delivered and accepted with the cargo, it is not material that he did not sign it.
If a deed of land states that the land is subject to a mortgage, which a grantee agrees to pay as part of the consideration, the acceptance of the deed binds the grantee, personally, although he does not sign it.
Let us reverse the position. Suppose this paper had been signed by plaintiff, the carrier, and delivered to defendant on receipt of the cargo, could the defendant then have shown by parol that the goods were to be carried to New York instead of Albany?
The case of Covill v. Hill (4 Denio, 323), cited to sustain plaintiff's position, only explains what a bill of lading is. It' is not necessary to say that the paper in question is a bill of lading. The only question is, whether as between the parties, it was the written evidence of the contract, completely stating its terms. If so, it cannot be contradicted by parol evidence. It seems to me that the authorities hold that such a writing, signed by one party, and delivered to and accepted by the other, at or before the commencement of the work to be done, is the written evidence of the contract.
, The judgment should be reversed, new trial granted, referee discharged, costs to abide event.
Landon, J\, concurred.