
    I. Newton Williams, Resp’t, v. Isabella H. Fisher, App’lt.
    
      New York Common Pleas, General Term,
    
    
      Filed May 17, 1894.)
    
    1. Evidence—Parol.
    Parol evidence is admissible to vary, enlarge or define a written instrn ment, in an action between others than parties thereto.
    S. Contract—Promise for benefit of third person.
    Where a promise is made for the benefit of a third person as a condition of compromise of a litigation, such a party can maintain an action upon it.
    Appeal from the district court in the city of New York for the eleventh judicial district.
    
      Frank L. Crawford,, for app’lt; 1. Newton Williams, in person, for resp’t.
   Bookstaver, P. J.

This action was brought to recover attorney’s fees for services rendered in an action in the supreme court which was settled between the parties without the consent of the defendant’s attorney in that action, being the respondent herein. Upon the trial the release so executed between the parties was given in evidence, and thereafter respondent introduced oral testimony tending to show what his charges were, and that the appellant herein, being defendant in the supreme court action, undertook to pay them. This was objected to by appellant on the ground that no oral testimony could be given to vary, enlarge or define this written release. This contention is undoubtedly good as between the parties to the contract itself, but not as to strangers to it, as the respondent in this case was. The rule prohibiting the reception of parol evidence to vary or modify a written agreement, does not apply where the original contract was verbal and entire, and a part only reduced to writing ; nor does it apply to a collateral undertaking or to á stranger to the contract. Besides, where a promise is made by a party as a condition of compromise of a litigation for another’s benefit, that other can maintain an action upon it. See Todd v. Weber, 95 N. Y. 181; Rector v. Teed, 120 N. Y. 583 ; 31 St. Rep. 908 ; Gifford, v. Corrigan, 105 N. Y. 222; 7 St. Rep. 7; S. C. 117 N. Y. 257 ; 27 St. Rep. 233.

The judgment must therefore be affirmed, with costs.  