Case Name: PACE v. UNITED STATES DRAINAGE & IRRIGATION CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-12-06
Citations: 138 N.Y.S. 420
Docket Number: 
Parties: PACE v. UNITED STATES DRAINAGE & IRRIGATION CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 138
Pages: 420–421

Head Matter:
PACE v. UNITED STATES DRAINAGE & IRRIGATION CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
December 6, 1912.)
1. Appeal and Error (§§ Í011, 1151*)—Findings—Judgment—Correction.
A finding on conflicting evidence, rendered without prejudicial error, will not be disturbed on appeal; but errors in computing the amount of the judgment on the finding will be corrected, and the judgment, as corrected, will be affirmed.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3983-3989, 4498—4506; Dec. Dig. §§ 1011, 1151.*]
2. Costs (§ 146*)—Amount oe Recovery in Municipal Court.
Where the amount recovered in the Municipal Court, of the City of New York in an action for the reasonable value of. services is less than $300, the costs must be reduced to $20.
[Ed. Note.-—For other cases, see Costs, Cent. Dig. § 533; Dec. Dig. § 146.*]
*For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District.
Action by John B. Pace against the United States Drainage & Irrigation Company. From a judgment for' plaintiff, defendant appeals. Modified and affirmed.
Argued November term, 1912, before LEHMAN, PAGE, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.
James M. Betts, of New York City, for appellant. .
Pace & Stimpson, of New York City (George B. Holbert, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff sues for the reasonable value of services rendered to the defendant, at its request, in the capacity of engineer in charge of constructing a dam. The question of compensation for the work was left for subsequent adjustment, and was never adjusted. Upon conflicting evidence the court decided that the services were reasonably worth $50 per week, and that the plaintiff was employed for 6 weeks 4% days.
There was no prejudicial error committed, and there is no valid reason for disturbing this conclusion. The judgment entered was for $327.50 and costs. In computing this amount, an error of $10 was. committed. The total should have been $337.50. But, on the other hand, the court neglected to deduct a payment of $54.17, which was admitted in the complaint. Making this correction reduces the recovery to $283.33. As this amount is less than $300, the costs must be reduced to $20.
The judgment will be modified, by reducing the same to the sum of $303.33, and, as modified, affirmed, with $15 costs to respondent.