case last cited rule in New York

1935(White v. Rintoul, 108 N. Y. 222 .) Appellant relies on the doctrine of the case last cited “ that where the primary debt subsists and was antecedently contracted, the promise to pay it is original when it is founded on a new consideration moving to the promisor and beneficial to him, and such that the promisor thereby comes under an independent duty of payment irrespective of the liability of the principal debtor.” This statement of the rule, however, does not quite gibe with the modern test that to prevent the bar of the statute the party sought to be charged must become a principal debtor p

1934(See, inter alia, Wilson v. Been, 74 N. Y. 531 ; Eighmie v. Taylor, 98 N. Y. 288 ; Lese v. Lamprecht, 196 N. Y. 32 ; Ruppert v. Singhi, 243 N. Y. 156 ; Mitchill v. Lath, 247 N. Y. 377 .) In the case last cited the rule was said to be “a rule of law which defines the limits of the contract to be construed. * * * It is more than a rule of evidence and oral testimony even if admitted will not control the written contract, * * * unless admitted without objection.

1934(See, inter alia, Wilson v. Been, 74 N. Y. 531 ; Eighmie v. Taylor, 98 N. Y. 288 ; Lese v. Lamprecht, 196 N. Y. 32 ; Ruppert v. Singhi, 243 N. Y. 156 ; Mitchill v. Lath, 247 N. Y. 377 .) In the case last cited the rule was said to be “a rule of law which defines the limits of the contract to be construed. * * * It is more than a rule of evidence and oral testimony even if admitted will not control the written contract, * * * unless admitted without objection.

1934(See, inter alia, Wilson v. Been, 74 N. Y. 531 ; Eighmie v. Taylor, 98 N. Y. 288 ; Lese v. Lamprecht, 196 N. Y. 32 ; Ruppert v. Singhi, 243 N. Y. 156 ; Mitchill v. Lath, 247 N. Y. 377 .) In the case last cited the rule was said to be “a rule of law which defines the limits of the contract to be construed. * * * It is more than a rule of evidence and oral testimony even if admitted will not control the written contract, * * * unless admitted without objection.

1934(Brady v. Nolly, 151 N. Y. 258 .) ” We are thus brought to consider the true holding in Brady v. Natty .

1934(See, inter alia, Wilson v. Been, 74 N. Y. 531 ; Eighmie v. Taylor, 98 N. Y. 288 ; Lese v. Lamprecht, 196 N. Y. 32 ; Ruppert v. Singhi, 243 N. Y. 156 ; Mitchill v. Lath, 247 N. Y. 377 .) In the case last cited the rule was said to be “a rule of law which defines the limits of the contract to be construed. * * * It is more than a rule of evidence and oral testimony even if admitted will not control the written contract, * * * unless admitted without objection.

1934(See, inter alia, Wilson v. Been, 74 N. Y. 531 ; Eighmie v. Taylor, 98 N. Y. 288 ; Lese v. Lamprecht, 196 N. Y. 32 ; Ruppert v. Singhi, 243 N. Y. 156 ; Mitchill v. Lath, 247 N. Y. 377 .) In the case last cited the rule was said to be “a rule of law which defines the limits of the contract to be construed. * * * It is more than a rule of evidence and oral testimony even if admitted will not control the written contract, * * * unless admitted without objection.

1909(Yates v. Fassett, 5 Denio, 21 ; Secor v. Sturgis, 16 N. Y. 548, 554 ; O'Beirne v. Lloyd, 43 N. Y. 248 ; Lorillard v. Clyde, 122 N. Y. 41 ; Seed v. Johnston, 63 App. Div. 340 ; Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of Westfield v. Brown, 54 Barb. 191, 199 .) In the case last cited the rule is well expz-essed : “ In order to avoid multiplicity of actions, the law forbids that a cause of action shall be split up for the purpose of bringing several actions.

1909(Yates v. Fassett, 5 Denio, 21 ; Secor v. Sturgis, 16 N. Y. 548, 554 ; O'Beirne v. Lloyd, 43 N. Y. 248 ; Lorillard v. Clyde, 122 N. Y. 41 ; Seed v. Johnston, 63 App. Div. 340 ; Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of Westfield v. Brown, 54 Barb. 191, 199 .) In the case last cited the rule is well expz-essed : “ In order to avoid multiplicity of actions, the law forbids that a cause of action shall be split up for the purpose of bringing several actions.

1909(Yates v. Fassett, 5 Denio, 21 ; Secor v. Sturgis, 16 N. Y. 548, 554 ; O'Beirne v. Lloyd, 43 N. Y. 248 ; Lorillard v. Clyde, 122 N. Y. 41 ; Seed v. Johnston, 63 App. Div. 340 ; Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of Westfield v. Brown, 54 Barb. 191, 199 .) In the case last cited the rule is well expz-essed : “ In order to avoid multiplicity of actions, the law forbids that a cause of action shall be split up for the purpose of bringing several actions.

1909(Yates v. Fassett, 5 Denio, 21 ; Secor v. Sturgis, 16 N. Y. 548, 554 ; O'Beirne v. Lloyd, 43 N. Y. 248 ; Lorillard v. Clyde, 122 N. Y. 41 ; Seed v. Johnston, 63 App. Div. 340 ; Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of Westfield v. Brown, 54 Barb. 191, 199 .) In the case last cited the rule is well expz-essed : “ In order to avoid multiplicity of actions, the law forbids that a cause of action shall be split up for the purpose of bringing several actions.

1909(Yates v. Fassett, 5 Denio, 21 ; Secor v. Sturgis, 16 N. Y. 548, 554 ; O'Beirne v. Lloyd, 43 N. Y. 248 ; Lorillard v. Clyde, 122 N. Y. 41 ; Seed v. Johnston, 63 App. Div. 340 ; Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of Westfield v. Brown, 54 Barb. 191, 199 .) In the case last cited the rule is well expz-essed : “ In order to avoid multiplicity of actions, the law forbids that a cause of action shall be split up for the purpose of bringing several actions.

1909(Yates v. Fassett, 5 Denio, 21 ; Secor v. Sturgis, 16 N. Y. 548, 554 ; O'Beirne v. Lloyd, 43 N. Y. 248 ; Lorillard v. Clyde, 122 N. Y. 41 ; Seed v. Johnston, 63 App. Div. 340 ; Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of Westfield v. Brown, 54 Barb. 191, 199 .) In the case last cited the rule is well expz-essed : “ In order to avoid multiplicity of actions, the law forbids that a cause of action shall be split up for the purpose of bringing several actions.

1897In Rozelle v. Rose ( 3 App. Div. 132 ) it is said that the operation of mending a belt cannot be regarded in any sense as a master’s duty.

1897Co., 139 N. Y. 302 ; Cregan v. Marston, 126 id. 568, 512.) In the case last cited an exception is said to exist in regard to defects arising in the daily use of the appliance, for which proper and suitable materials are supplied, and which may be easily remedied by the workmen without the help of skilled mechanics.

1893Supp. 753 , they show “how slight a difference may exist between the conditions requiring the application of the one or the other. ” In the case last cited the rule was thus stated: “It appears to be settled that if the charge or defense be definitely stated, although the statement involves details, it is sufficient to put the party to an application for a bill of particulars, and compels him to resort to that remedy, although the result of either application would be the same. ” And in Jackman v. Lord, (Sup.) 9 N. Y.

1880The rule is well established, that anything *558 .said accompanying the performance of an act, explanatory thereof or showing its purpose or intention, when material is competent as a part of the act: (1 Greenl on Ev. [13th ed.], §§ 108, 109; Wharton on Ev., 262; People v. Davis, 56 N. Y., 102 .) Such declarations constitute a part of the res -gestee and are admissible as such : ( Waterman v. Whitney, 11 N. Y., 157, 162 .) In the case last cited the rule is laid down, that upon a question of revocation no declarations of the testator are admissible, except such as accompany the act by which th