Majority
Headnote
After a' settlement between the parties, and the giving of a note by the defendants to the plaintiffs for a sum agreed upon, but during the same interview, the defendants agreed that, in case a certain shipment of lumber, made by them, which had not yet arrived, should prove, on arrival, to contain less than 149,013 feet, at which amount it had been invoiced, the defendants would make good the deficiency. Sdd that this agreement, being subsequent to, was not merged in, the settlement; and that an action would lie, upon it, to recover the amount of a deficiency in the quantity of lumber shipped.The referee has found, and upon evidence justifying it, that after the note was given, upon the settlement made, the defendants agreed that in case the shipment of black walnut lumber should prove,' on arrival, to contain less than 149,013 feet, at which amount it had been invoiced-by the defendants, the defendants would make good the deficiency. This agreement was subsequent to the settlement, which was made upon the basis of the invoice being correct, although it was at the same interview. The proof was admissible. (Stockwell v. Holmes, 33 N. Y. 53 .) It clearly, therefore; wás not merged in the settlement; for though at the same interview, it was, as I have said, after the settlement, and
[First Department, General Term, at New York,
January 1, 1872.
The variance between the complaint and the proof is immaterial, after judgment. We may, on this appeal, order an amendment, so as to conform the allegations of the complaint to the evidence.
The judgment.should be affirmed.
Geo.
Cases cited
- Stockwell v. Holmes 33 N. Y. 53 p. 334