89 N.Y.S. 616 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1904
The parties made a contract in writing whereby the plaintiff agreed, for the sum of eleven dollars and sixty cents per lineal foot,, i “ to excavate and to refill a trench for use in the construction of a sewer,” and “ to furnish all labor and tools, and excavate a trench to the depth required for a solid foundation, estimated,” etc., and “ to protect and erect within said trench all the required sheeting,
Coal is certainly not a material within the meaning of the phrase in this agreement. Of course, it is material as distinguished as matter; it is physical, not spiritual. The material referred to in the agreement is that of which the “ sheeting, bracing, bridging, foundation planking,” and the like may be made. As between the two clauses, I have no hesitation in ■ assigning coal to “ labor and tools,” rather than to the material.
The learned counsel for the appellant insists that he was entitled to offer parol evidence. The plaintiff was not permitted to state whether, in figuring on the price or m naming the price, he took the expense of coal into consideration. But there is no reason why he should have testified to his mental processes. He was permitted to testify that he asked one of the defendants: “ What do you want me to figure on ? ” and that Mr. Holmes replied : “ I only want you to figure on supplying the labor and tools, and we will supply all
There seems to have been a practical construction of the contract. 'The plaintiff testifies that subsequent to the signing of the contract he had no conversation in reference to the defendants’ paying for -coal; that he did not bring up the question whether Mr. Holmes ■should pay him for the coal, but that after the lapse of some months he said to the defendants: “ Mr. Holmes, under this contract I •do not see why I should pay for coal,” and Mr. Holmes replied: “Well, I don’t know. I should think you ought to. I said: ‘I •don’t know; you see how I am getting out of the contract, and, therefore, I think 1 ought not to pay for coal..’ ” The plaintiff had bought and paid for the coal without question or demur for ■some months, and it would seem that his protest was due to the dis-covery that the contract was not as profitable as hfe had expected.
I think that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
All concurred.
Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.