
    Lucian Knapp, Resp’t, v. Sackett M. Barclay, App'lt.
    
      (New York Common Pleas, General Term,
    
    
      Filed December 2, 1889.)
    
    Appeal—Judgment rendered on erroneous ground will not be reversed WHERE RESULT OF CORRECT DECISION WOULD BE THE SAME.
    The justice below discredited plaintiffs testimony as to the alleged agreement of defendant’s agent to return the money in a certain event, hut rendered judgment for plaintiff on the ground that he had been fraudulently induced to pay the money, of which there was no evidence in the case. Held, that, while the decision might not be a wise one, the judgment would not be reversed.
    Appeal from district court-.
    
      J. JFI. Laird, for app’lt; M. Laly, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

We can discover nothing in the evidence to warrant the observation of the justice of the district court that Stehle deceived Darer, and fraudulently induced him to pay the money in controversy to Barclay. If the justice believed Darer’s own story he had no reason to impute the slightest fraud to any one. Darer swore that he paid the money to Barclay’s agent in-reliance upon the promise of the latter that it should be returned in case Mr. Barclay did not give him a lease of the farm. Mr. Barclay did not give Darer a lease, and, consequently, if Darer’s: story be true, he is entitled to recover the money, not because he was defrauded, but because the contract provided that it should be returned to' him, under the circumstances that now exist Although the testimony of Darer is amply sufficient to support the judgment, it seems that it was not accepted as true by the justice,, who appears to have discredited the statement that the money was to be returned in case a lease were not giving to Darer, and to have assumed without proof that Darer paid the money because Stehle persuaded him that it was the best way to ensure the getting of a lease and that Stehle was guilty of fraud in using such persuasions.

We have doubts as to whether the decision of the court below was a wise one, but we shall not interfere with it. It seems strange to us that no inquiry was made of Paine, the agent of Mr. Barclay, as to whether he agreed at the time the money wop paid to return it to Darer in the event of Mr. Barclay’s refusal to give him a lease. . Paine was a witness, and the very turning point of the case was whether or not such an agreement was made, and yet Paine did not really contradict Darer’s statement as to the agreement

We must, therefore, affirm the judgment.

Larremore, Ch. J., and Van Hoesen, J., concur.  