Levi v. L. A. Thompson Scenic Railway
Leslie Levi, Doing Business as Ivel Process Company v. L. A. Thompson Scenic Railway Company
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
Since the agreement in suit is on its face a complete contract, separate and distinct from the agreement regarding the Hippodrome scene, it was error to admit evidence confusing the two separate contracts and regarding them as one agreement. The breach of a contract separate and distinct from the one in suit cannot be interposed as a defense to the agreement that is being litigated in the case at bar. (Dixon & Co. v. Bronston Bros. & Co., 171 App. Div. 552 .)
Defendant’s Exhibit M should have been excluded from the evidence, since it is not a contract between the parties and it in itself tends to vary the terms of the contracts Exhibit I and Exhibit B.
Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.
All concur; present, Bijur, O’Malley and Levy, JJ.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.