
    KRAHE v. ELECTRIC CONSERVATION CO., Inc.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
    November 3, 1915.)
    Principal and Agent @=”89—Action fob Compensation—Evidence—Sufficiency.
    In an action for commissions on procuring an electric service contract, a statement by plaintiff’s counsel as to the amount of the contract was not sufficient to support a judgment for plaintiff.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Cent. Dig. §§ 216, 229-239 ; Dec. Dig. @=”89.]
    <@zs>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District.
    Action by George W. Krahe against the Electric Conservation Company, Incorporated. Judgment for plaintiff for $98.72, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
    Argued October term, 1915, before BIJUR, PAGE, and SHEARN, JJ.
    Alex B. Greenberg, of New York City, for appellant.
    Robert E. Noah, of New York City, for respondent.
   SHEARN, J.

The evidence to uphold the court’s finding that plaintiff -was the procuring cause of the contract, while unsatisfactory, might be sufficient to sustain the judgment, if there were any evidence upon which the amount of the commission could be predicated. The contract was not introduced in evidence, and the record discloses nothing but a statement made to the court by plaintiff’s attorney concerning the amount of the contract.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.  