Case Name: SALVATORE ROSCO, RESPONDENT, v. FRANK FIGARO ET UX., APPELLANTS
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1927-10-17
Citations: 104 N.J.L. 184
Docket Number: 
Parties: SALVATORE ROSCO, RESPONDENT, v. FRANK FIGARO ET UX., APPELLANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 104
Pages: 184–185

Head Matter:
SALVATORE ROSCO, RESPONDENT, v. FRANK FIGARO ET UX., APPELLANTS.
Argued May 18, 1927
Decided October 17, 1927.
For the appellants, Louis A. Gowley.
For the respondent, Feder & Binzler.

Opinion:
Pee Cueiam.
This suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation for work and labor done in laying brick in the construction of a building which was being erected upon the property of the defendants in the city, of Garfield. His claim was that the work was done under a contract entered into between himself and the defendants; that he had completed that work, and that they .had refused to pay him the moneys due. The defendants answered, denying the truth of the matters set out in the complaint. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of his claim, and the defendants have appealed from the judgment entered upon that verdict.
We find nothing of merit in any of the grounds for reversal which have been submitted to us, nor any matter in either of them which we deem worthy of specific discussion.
The judgment under review will be affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Yak Bus kirk, McGuEisnsroN, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, JJ. 14.
For reversal — Hone.