Case ID: njl_91/html/0699-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MICHAEL KORMAN, RESPONDENT, v. MARY E. LIVESEY, APPELLANT.
    Submitted December 10, 1917
    Decided January 31, 1918.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
    “The plaintiff brought his suit to recover on a contract with the defendant to pay plaintiff $300 for the construction of a store front and also for extra work, amounting to $80, which was subject to a credit of $275, leaving a balance due of $105.
    “The couid deducted certain items from the sum claimed, amounting to §21.20, and gave judgment for plaintiff for the balance.
    “It is urged in support of this appeal that it was error to refuse to admit in evidence a copy of a three days’ notice to proceed with the contract which the defendant testified she mailed to the plaintiff. There was no notice given the plaintiff to produce the original at the trial, and we think that under such circumstances the paper was not admissible, but if it was, the defendant suffered no harm, for she was allowed to testify to the mailing, the admission of the plaintiff that he had received it, and to the contents of the notice.
    “The state of the ease shows that the trial court found that after the notice was given, the plaintiff completed the contract with the exception of the items for which it made allowance. We fail to see any harmful error on this branch of the case.
    “It is next urged that the defendant had not accepted the work. While the declaration filed in this case was the common counts, nevertheless, the case was tried on the theory that there was a contract for $300, and additional work amounting to $80, and in such ease where the court finds that there was a substantial performance, as it did in this case, the question whether or not the defendant had accepted the building was of no consequence.
    “The judgment will be affirmed.”
    For the appellant, Collins & Corbin.
    
    For the respondent, Carling & Hirschberg.
    
   Pee Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Swayze, Trenchard, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.