Contracts · MBE-tested

George W. Long, Appellant, v. The Millerton Iron Company, Respondent

101 N.Y. 638·New York Court of Appeals·1886·NY

All concur, except Rapallo, Andrews and Danforth, JJ., dissenting.

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

George W. Long, Appellant, v. The Millerton Iron Company, Respondent. (Argued December 22, 1885; decided January 26, 1886.) This was an action to recover damages for the cutting and carrying away of certain timber. The parties' had made a contract for the sale of standing timber on lands described in the contract. On the trial plaintiff offered to prove acts, statements and declarations of .the parties at the time, and after the making of the contract, showing that the timber in question was not understood by the- parties to be covered by the contract. This was objected to and excluded. Held no error ; that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and reserved none of the timber, and that, therefore, oral evidence was inadmissible to change or to explain it. James Lansing for appellant. Esek Cotoen for respondent. [MAJORITY — Earl, J.,] Earl, J., reads for affirmance. All concur, except Rapallo, Andrews and Danforth, JJ., dissenting. J udgment affirmed.