
    Phonograph Corporation of Manhattan, Respondent, v. Alphonzo Smith, Appellant.
    
      Bills, notes and checks — action to recover on promissory note — defense that time far payment of note had been extended — when oral testimony offered to prove such extension properly excluded.
    
    
      Phonograph Corporation of Manhattan v. Smith, 192 App. Div. 896, affirmed.
    (Argued December 2, 1921;
    decided December 16, 1921,)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 18, 1920, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court. This action was brought upon a promissory note made by the defendant to the plaintiff on April 22, 1918, for $7,000, which the plaintiff claims was due in six months. The defendant in its answer admitted the making of the note but alleged as an affirmative defense that the plaintiff, for a valid consideration, had agreed with him that payment of the principal amount or any balance thereof due on the note be extended to January 15, 1920; the defendant also pleaded a counterclaim for damages caused by the plaintiff’s unlawful refusal to carry out its contract to supply him with Edison phonographs, records, etc., down to said date. Upon the trial the defendant sought to prove by parol evidence the agreement extending his time to renew and pay the note and to be supplied with phonographs, etc., but the trial court excluded the same, holding that it was at variance with the terms of certain letters exchanged between the parties and thereupon directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
    
      Peter P. Smith, Dominic B. Griffin and Frank V. Smith for appellant.
    
      Allen S. Wrenn for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.  