The opinion
Devens, J.
There was evidence at the trial to show that the contract between the parties was an express contract, and by the terms of it the plaintiff agreed to make and deliver to the defendant upon a day certain a suit of clothes, which were to be made to the' satisfaction of the defendant. The clothes were made and delivered upon the day specified, but were not to the satisfaction of the defendant, who declined to accept and promptly returned the same. If the plaintiff saw fit to do work upon articles for the defendant and to furnish materials therefor, contracting that the articles when manufactured should be satisfactory to *139 the defendant, he can recover only upon the contract as it was made; and even if the articles furnished by him were such that the other party ought to have been satisfied with them, it was yet in the power of the other to reject them as unsatisfactory. It is not for any one else to decide whether a refusal to accept Is or is not reasonable, when the contract permits the defendant to decide himself whether the articles furnished are to his satisfaction. Although the compensation of the plaintiff for valuable service and materials may thus be dependent upon the caprice of another who unreasonably refuses to accept the articles manufactured, yet he cannot be relieved from the contract into which he has voluntarily entered. McCarren v. McNulty, 7 Gray, 139 .
When an express contract like that shown in the present case was proved to have been made between parties, it was not competent to control it by evidence of a usage. It may be that the very object of the express contract was to avoid the effect of such usage, and no evidence of usage can be admitted to contradict the terms of a contract, or control its legal interpretation and effect. Dickinson v. Gay, 7 Allen, 29 , 31. The evidence admitted was of this description. Exceptions sustained.