Peabody v. . Speyers

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] The appellant sustained no injury from the parol proof of the contract. The answer does not deny the making of the contract as alleged in the complaint, but sets up facts avoiding it, under the statute of frauds. The exception to this proof is not, therefore, available. The constitution and by-laws of the New York Gold Exchange were competent evidence. The parties were both members of the association, and had both subscribed the constitution. By this, and the…