Isles v. Tucker
The Superior Court of New York City
On the 27th day of April, 1850, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a copartnership, for the purpose of conducting a dining saloon, or refectory, at 145| and 147 Bowery, in this city, which had been previously conducted by defendant. The partnership was to continue until the first of May, 1853. This action was commenced by plaintiff for the purpose of enforcing an accounting on the part of defendant.
Read the full summary
On the 27th day of April, 1850, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a copartnership, for the purpose of conducting a dining saloon, or refectory, at 145| and 147 Bowery, in this city, which had been previously conducted by defendant. The partnership was to continue until the first of May, 1853. This action was commenced by plaintiff for the purpose of enforcing an accounting on the part of defendant. Five causes of action are set forth in the complaint: The second cause of action arises, as plaintiff claims, out of the fact that defendant converted to his own use the money which…
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Bosworth, J.
The plaintiff seems to have tried this action on the theory, that the evidence given by the defendant was open to the objection, that its object was to contradict, by parol evidence, the clear terms of a written agreement.
The evidence, if admissible for any purpose, was admissible to establish the fact, that the executed contract was, by mistake, so drawn as not to express the contract as it had been actually agreed upon. Assuming that the pleadings were such as to authorize the reception of such evidence, there was none given except that of A. W. Smith.
He does not state what the parties said…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Ward v. WardMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Decker v. SextonAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1896
- Hopkins v. WardNew York Supreme Court · 1876