Majority
p. 603H. Clay Howard, Respondent, v. Edward N. Breitung et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Breitung & Company, Ltd., Appellants. (Argued June 7, 1917; decided July 11, 1917.)
Headnote
Howard v. Breitung. 178 App. Div. 889 , affirmed.Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appelr late Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 5, 1917, which Affirmed an order of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint in an action on a contract by which plaintiff was employed by defendants to obtain a contract with the government.of Peru for the irrigation and colonization of certain territory in that' country. The amended complaint states two causes of action. The first for moneys claimed to have been actually earned under the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants up to
p. 604
the time of the abandonment thereof and the second for damages for wrongful cancellation of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants.
The following question was certified: “ Does the second cause of action set forth in the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action ? ”
Otto C. Sommerich and Maxwell C. Katz for appellants.
Alton B. Parker and Henderson Peck for respondent.
Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.
Concur: Chase, Collin, Cabdozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Ceane and Andbews, JJ.