
    Santo Curro, Respondent, v. Tony Altieri, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    November, 1900.)
    General release — Not to be varied by parol evidence.
    Parol evidence is inadmissible to show that a certain demand, made the subject of an action by a party releasing against the party released, was intended to be excepted from the operation of a general release theretofore executed between the parties.
    
      Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan.
    Mooney & Shipman, for appellant.
    J. Krone, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The effect of the testimony to which the counsel for the appellant objected was that although the plaintiff had executed a general release on the 6th day of October, 1899, releasing the defendant of all claims that he, the plaintiff, had against him, the defendant, yet, nevertheless, one particular claim, viz., the claim in suit, was excluded from the effects of the said general release. To admit this testimony was error. It was admitting parol evidence which varied the terms of a written instrument. The release is general and comprehensive, and reaches every debt due defendant to the plaintiff. To show by parol evidence that it was not intended to release every claim that the plaintiff had against the defendant is to contradict the instrument. Pierson v. Hooker, 3 Johns. 68.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs.-

Present: Truax, P. J.; Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Judgment reversed, with costs.  