Majority
p. 1033GRIFFIN v. ARLT. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. December 21, 1905.)
Headnote
Abstracts op Title—examination—Contracts—Performance.Where defendant employed plaintiff to search a title, the work “to be done and completed in about two weeks,” and the work was not completed, even in semblance, within such time, and defendant notified plaintiff three days after the two iveeks expired that, as he had but two days before making final payment, he ought to have the report by that time to be of any value, there was no sufficient performance of the contract to justify a recovery. .
p. 1034Argued before SCOTT, P. J„ and BISCHÜFF and MacLEAN, JJ.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District.
Action by Henry P. Griffin against Willian H. Arlt. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Max P. Arlt, for appellant.
Stephen J. Stilwell, for respondent.
While the trial justice may have justifiably determined employment of the plaintiff’s assignors by the defendant, it was, as alleged, for services in the searching of title, “to be done and completed in about two weeks.” This work was admittedly not completed within the agreed time, nor later, even in semblance, under cover of “we report,” in their letter of February 23, 1905, to the defendant, who had notified them three days -after the two weeks had passed that, having only a couple of days before making final. payment, he ought to have report by that time to Le of any value. The evidence did not warrant judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs t'o appellant to abide the event.