Clark v. Adams

Decided May 7, 1888

The Superior Court of New York City · decided 1888-05-07

1. Evidence—Parol evidence not admissible to vary written contract. Parol evidence is not competent to add to or affect the meaning of a written agreement. 2. Contract—Construction of—Meaning of "‘ available phosphoric acid.” By the terms of the contract the plaintiff agreed to manufacture certain material supplied to him into “ available phosphoric acid.” Hdd. that there was nothing in that agreement providing that the phosphoric acid, when thus manufactured, should possess any quality other than that meant and described by the word available. That the sale of the phosphoric acid was sufficient proof that it was available.

Decided 1888-05-07

Per Curiam.

¶1The reason assigned' by the trial judge for refusing to dismiss the complaint was erroneous, but the ruling was correct. The action was for an accounting and the record shows that the counterclaim to which the plaintiff made no reply, was allowed to the defendants in the computation of the amount for which the plaintiff had judgment. As to the merits, the opinion delivered by the learned judge at special term is correct. The record discloses no error, and, upon the whole case, it appears that, substantial justice has been done."

¶2Judgment affirmed with costs.