From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mulderrig v. Burke

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Oct 1, 1898
24 Misc. 716 (N.Y. App. Term 1898)

Opinion

October, 1898.

Cromwell G. Macy, for appellants.

Thomas O'Callaghan, Jr., for respondent.


The memorandum in writing, signed by both parties, which expressed the terms upon which the plaintiff undertook the mason work he did for the defendants, states that the price to be paid was at the rate of five cents a foot. The plaintiff claims that the agreement was for five and one-half cents; that he could not read writing, and that when he signed the paper he supposed it truly expressed the arrangement which had been made for the larger sum. He is flatly contradicted by the witnesses for the defendants with respect to his version of the agreement. The alleged error in the written evidence of the contract being in dispute, and there being no proof tending to show that the plaintiff was in any way induced to refrain from examining the paper, or that any other deceit of like character had been practiced upon him, he must be held to the consequences of his own act, and be bound by the terms of the instrument which he admits that he signed. Any other conclusion than this would render written evidence of an agreement of little value and invite its impeachment by such testimony as has been given here whenever the interest of a party made it desirable to avoid it. It follows that the judgment rendered by the trial justice in favor of the plaintiff must be reversed.

GILDERSLEEVE and GIEGERICH, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.


Summaries of

Mulderrig v. Burke

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Oct 1, 1898
24 Misc. 716 (N.Y. App. Term 1898)
Case details for

Mulderrig v. Burke

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY MULDERRIG, Respondent, v . LUKE A. BURKE et al., Appellants

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Oct 1, 1898

Citations

24 Misc. 716 (N.Y. App. Term 1898)
53 N.Y.S. 1004