The contract of October 16, 1905, was a merger of defendants’ claim for improper installation prior to tliat time; the contract provided exclusively what should be done by plaintiff thereafter to satisfy defendants; the admission of evidence-over plaintiff’s objection as to the insufficiency .of the work before October sixteenth was, therefore, error, and the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event. Yfoodward, Jenks, Hooker, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.