From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ferdinand Munch Brewery v. De Matteis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 20, 1908
128 App. Div. 830 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)

Opinion

November 20, 1908.

David H. Solotaroff, for the appellant.

John H. Steenwerth, for the respondent.


This action was brought to recover a balance due on a promissory note, the consideration for which was money advanced by the plaintiff to pay for a liquor tax certificate, taken out by and in the name of the defendant. The defense pleaded was an oral agreement, made before the making and delivery of the note, that the defendant should only be required to pay the sum of eighteen dollars and seventy-five cents per week so long as he remained in business and purchased beer of the plaintiff.

The evidence of the verbal agreement was not competent to contradict or vary the terms of the written instrument. ( Jamestown Business College Association v. Allen, 172 N.Y. 291. ) However, it was received without objection and we will consider its effect. The defendant testified that the arrangement for taking out the license was made with the plaintiff's collector who informed the defendant that, if he should discontinue taking beer and should close out, he would not have to pay any more license, but that did not amount to an agreement that the note should be considered paid upon the plaintiff's discontinuing business. Said statement was not inconsistent with a continuing obligation on the part of the plaintiff to pay any unpaid balance on the note. Upon discontinuing business the plaintiff might have obtained a rebate for the unexpired term. It appears, however, that he was convicted of a violation of the Liquor Tax Law, thereby forfeiting the rebate to which he would otherwise have been entitled. The conversation testified to did not establish an agreement that the note, which was subsequently given, should be deemed paid upon the defendant's discontinuing business, even had it been competent thus to vary the terms of the written instrument, and it was error to dismiss the complaint.

The judgment should be reversed.

WOODWARD, HOOKER, GAYNOR and RICH, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.


Summaries of

Ferdinand Munch Brewery v. De Matteis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 20, 1908
128 App. Div. 830 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)
Case details for

Ferdinand Munch Brewery v. De Matteis

Case Details

Full title:FERDINAND MUNCH BREWERY, Appellant, v . AGOSTING DE MATTEIS, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 20, 1908

Citations

128 App. Div. 830 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)
112 N.Y.S. 1042

Citing Cases

Long Island Trust Co. v. Merz

Thus the obligation assumed by the terms of the note contains no condition precedent requiring exhaustion of…