Case Name: ROBERT C. KLEMM, RESPONDENT, v. THEOBALD HERMANN, APPELLANT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1914-10-16
Citations: 86 N.J.L. 689
Docket Number: 
Parties: ROBERT C. KLEMM, RESPONDENT, v. THEOBALD HERMANN, APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 86
Pages: 689–690

Head Matter:
ROBERT C. KLEMM, RESPONDENT, v. THEOBALD HERMANN, APPELLANT.
Submitted June 20, 1914
Decided October 16, 1914.
Ou appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
“The defendant, Hermann, was sued in this suit to answer unto Robert Klemm. The common counts were interposed as a state of demand, and added to them is a notice that the action is brought to- recover $300 and interest, for professional services as an architect, rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant in drawing plans for an apartment-house at Nos. 558, 560 and 562 South Eleventh street, Newark. No person appeared representing the defendant at the tidal. The plaintiff was sworn in his own behalf, and the court thereupon rendered judgment for $300. On the 28th day of March, the judgment was opened and postponed until April 24th, and a judgment of $315 was then entered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant.
“The case was tried by the judge without a jury.
“The court found: H find, as a fact, that no price was mentioned when these plans were ordered, and if there was any competent evidence that they did not exactly comply with the law, the deviation was so slight that an alteration could easily have been made, and that the architect had been given no opportunity to make such alteration. 1 believe the plaintiff, and do not believe the defendant.’
“Thereupon, the court gave judgment for $300 and interest. There are no exceptions taken in the case and we are of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed.”
Eor the appellant, Abner Kalisclt.
Eor the respondent, Frank 17. Long.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chibe Justice, Garrison, Trenoi-iard, Parker, Minturn, Kálisci-i, P>lack, Bogert, Yeedenburgh, Terhune, Williams, JJ. 12.
For reversal — None.