Parol evidence was improperly admitted to vary the terms of the guarantee. There was no issue to submit to the jury in this connection. Nor was there any showing of dealing with the collateral on plaintiff's part at variance with the contract between the parties or any duty which plaintiff owed defendants. The case should not have been submitted to the jury and a verdict should have been directed for plaintiff.
Judgment unanimously reversed as to the defendant Kestenbaum...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
