Hocking Valley Railway Co. v. Barbour
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendants, Julia Adelaide Barbour and others, as executors, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 3d day of May, 1920, denying the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings consisting of a complaint and an answer.
1Dissent
Greenbaum, J. (dissenting):
Upon the former appeal in this action, referred to in the prevailing opinion, the court then said per Smith, J.: “ It has generally been held that the true consideration stated in a written obligation may always be shown by parol for any purpose other than that of changing the obligations imposed by the instrument upon the other party to the contract. (Sturmdorf v. Saunders, 117 App. Div. 762; Wheeler v. Billings, 38 N. Y. 263; Arnot v. Erie R. Co., 67 id. 315; Miller v. McKenzie, 95 id. 575; Mills v. Dow, 133 U. S. 423.) Under this rule they might show what the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Wheeler v. . BillingsNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Cocks v. . BarkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Mills v. Dow's AdministratorSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Sturmdorf v. SaundersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
- Sturmdorf v. . SaundersNew York Court of Appeals · 1908