Majority
p. 129Hyman Spinrad, Resp’t, v. David Finelite, Impleaded, etc., App’lt. (Brooklyn Cily Court, General Term, Filed December 26, 1893.)
Headnote
Services—Account rendered.Where plaintiff, after completing his work, presents his hill, and after-wards itemizes and increases its amount, his recovery, without explanation and proof of mistake, will he limited to the amount of the original
Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and defendants Beecher and another.
George W. Stephens, for app’lt; Alex. S. Rosenthal, for resp’t Spinrad.
There is no question of law involved on this appeal, amount dispute not justify a discussion
p. 130
of the facts. It is sufficient to say that we have carefully examined the printed record, and conclude that the judgment below is not against the evidence, except in one respect. It appears that the plaintiff rendered a bill to Mr. Finelite, after the work was completed, for $215, and that plaintiff afterwards itemized it, and increased it to $289.50. No explanation is given why the bill was made larger, and there is no testimony on his part tending to show a mistake in rendering the original bill. The judgment in favor of the respondent Spinrad must be modified by reducing his claim to the amount of the bill as rendered.
Judgment in favor of respondent Spinrad modified by deducting the sum of $73, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Judgment in favor of respondents Beecher and another affirmed, without costs.
Yak Wyck, J., concurs.