p. 907James H. Tracy, Resp’t, v. Louis W. Frost, App’lt.(Supreme Court, General Term, Second DepartmentHeadnote
1. Executors and administrators — Liable personally on contract FOR FUNERAL SERVICES.An executor is personally liable on a contract made by him for the burial of his testator.
3. Justice’s court — Judgment.
A trial was concluded February 17, and judgment was rendered February 30. The record contained an entry: *"* Decision to be rendered Monday, February 36, 1888,” and statements that it was rendered on the 30th, and 36th. Held, that if the case was adjourned to the 36th, the rendition of judgment on that day was regular.
Appeal from judgment of county court, affirming judgmentof justice of the peace.
The return of the justice concludes as follows:
“Decision to be rendered Monday, 26, 1883, at 9 o’clock A. M.
“ Decision rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of one hundred and forty dollars, with costs of court, this, the 20th day of February, 1883.
Damages....................................... $140 00
Costs of court.................................. 4 00
Total...................................... $144 00
“ Dated Jamaica, February 20, 1883.
“ Decision rendered the 26th, at 9 A it.
“ Dated this 26th day of February.
“ Justice, of the Peace."
Frost & Coe, for app’lt; John F. Foley, for resp’t.
This action was commenced for the recovery of an undertaker’s bill for the casket, hearse and other articles and services in relation to the preparation of the body of one John K. Mayo for burial.
p. 908The plaintiff obtained a judgment before the justice, without a jury, which was affirmed on appeal to the county court, and-the defendant has appealed to the supreme court from the last j udg,- . ment.
There was evidence before the justice sufficient to justify the judgment.
The defendant was the executor named in the will of the de-, ceased man, and any contract made by him was binding upon him personally.
There is a point made by the appellant respecting the entry of judgment by the justice of the peace, but it is quite frivolous.
The trial was finished on the 17th day of February, 1883, and the judgment was rendered on the 20th day of the same month, within four days after the case was submitted, and it is claimed that the justice did not, therefore, have jurisdiction of the action. If the case was adjourned to the 26th day of February, as the entry would seem to indicate, then the rendition of the judgment on that day was regular and within the jurisdiction of the justice.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.