Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Held, (1) That the provisions contained in the note and those contained in the mortgage, being inconsistent, the provisions of the note must prevail. ( Rothschild v. Rio Grande Western Railway Co., 84 Hun, 03.) (2) The defendant could not exercise the option to extend the time of the payment of the note after suit brought so as to prejudice the right of the plaintiff. All concurred, except Ward, J., dissenting.