Grant v. Lawrence

Inasmuch as there is no certificate that the case contains all the evidence given upon the trial, this court is not called upon to review the evidence or the findings of fact made by the trial court. (Ald

(2) When the plaintiff’s firm became a purchaser from the defendant’s firm both parties understood that the articles to be sold were patented articles, and that such articles were manufactured in such a mode and manner as to be protected by the patents under which the defendant’s firm was operating. Some hesitation was evinced by the plaintiff’s firm at the time of the negotiations in respect to the sufficiency of the defendant’s patent to cover the harrows in question, and there -were inserted in the contract the following words: “Grant & He Water to be defended from trouble about patents.” In construing those words it is the duty of the court to look at the surrounding circumstances, the situation and relation of the parties to the transaction then in hand, evidenced by the contract entered into by them.

In Griffiths v. Hardenbergh ( 41 N. Y. 464 ) it was held that the court is to be assisted in the interpretation of a written contract by proof of surrounding facts as they existed at the time of its execution and delivery. That case is approved and the doctrine thereof reaffirmed in Dodge v. Zimmer ( 110 N. Y. 48 ). Evidently the purchasers, by soliciting and receiving the words we have quoted, desired to be entirely indemnified, protected and saved from all “ trouble ” which might come to them by reason of purchasing and selling the harrows that the defendant’s firm then contracted to sell and deliver to the plaintiff’s firm. The words were prepared by the seller, and ought to be construed most strongly against the defendant’s firm. (Noonan v. Bradley, 9 Wall. 394 ; Dodge v. Zimmer, 110 N. Y. 43 .)

In Brewster v. Countryman ( 12 Wend. 446 ), where the vendor of property, in connection with the terms of sale, said to the vendee “ that he would see him out with it,” it was held that these expressions were equivalent to an agreement to indemnify, and near the close of the opinion in that case Savage, Ch. J., said: “ That the words c see him oxit with it,’ in the connection in which they stand, can mean nothing else than to indemnify or save harmless, seems to me quite clear; if it was a cant phrase or provincialism, meaning some

(3) We think it is not a defense to the action for a breach of the defendant’s undertaking that the action brought by Olin & Co. against plaintiff was not resisted by means of a protracted litigation ending in the Supreme Court of the United States. Decisions had been made prior to the 21st of August, 1886, adverse to the position of the defendant in respect to the matter involved in Olin & Co.’s suit. It would have been competent for the defendant in this case to have introduced evidence by way of defense, showing that a complete defense existed to the suit. Such evidence was not produced by the defendant.

In Bridgeport Ins. Co. v. Wilson ( 34 N. Y. 275 ), where the parties had entered into a general covenant of indemnity, and it was insisted that they had not had an opportunity to defend suits, it was said, in the course of the opinion of Smith, J., at page 279, viz.: “ Although they liad no opportunity to defend the Barnum suit during its progress, yet, if they are allowed in this action to avail themselves of any defense that might have been interposed successfully in that suit, thejr are not prejudiced by the want of notice. Such opportunity is given them by holding that the judgment in the Barnum suit, although prima faeie evidence of the validity of the claim thereby established, is not conclusive against them, and they may be let in to show that it was obtained by collusion, or that a valid defense existed to the claim, which the insurance company neglected to set up.” The costs in the suits brought against the plaintiff’s firm and purchasers from plaintiff, as well as the amount paid for the services of an attorney, rendered necessary to extricate them from the trouble they were in, by reason of the failure of the defendant to perform its covenant, seem to be legitimate items of damage to be assessed against the defendant.

In Kip v. Brigham, ( 7 Johns. 171 ) it was said by Kent, Ch. J.: “ It is enough for a party, in order to maintain his action on a bond of indemnity, to show that he ivas liable and had paid the debt, or that he was sued, or that he was even exposed to a suit. * * * The costs were part of the loss and damage which the plaintiff had sustained by means of the default of the defendants in not satisfying the creditor.” (Hastie v. De Peyster, 3 Caines, 190.)

Martin and Merwin, JJ"., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.