
    Brinkman v. Eisler.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    
    October 15, 1891.)
    1. Contracts—Illegality—Recovery on Quantum Meruit.
    Plaintiff erected for defendant an awning in front of defendant’s premises, such erection being forbidden by a city ordinance. Held, that plaintiff was cot entitled to recover on a quantum meruit for the work, labor, and materials furnished.
    2. Nuisance—Erection of Awning in Street.
    An awning erected on a street in New York in front of the premises of an abutting owner is a nuisance.
    7 N. Y. Supp. 193, affirmed.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by Sebastian G. Brinkman, plaintiff, against Henry S. Eisler, defendant, to recover for work, labor, and materials furnished for the erection of an awning in front of defendant’s premises, prohibited by a city ordinance. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    Argued before Ehrlich, C. J., and Van Wyck and Newburgher, JJ.
    
      A. M. & G. Card, for appellant. Benno Loewy, for respondent.
   Ehrlich, C. J.

We agree with the learned judge who tried the cause that where a person agrees to do an unlawful act, and incurs expense, he cannot recover, either on the illegal contract or for a quantum meruit, for the law leaves the parties where they place themselves. The authorities hold that a structure such as the plaintiff undertook to erect is illegal and in the nature of a nuisance. See Trenor v. Jackson, 15 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 115; and on the subject, generally, see Telegraph Co. v. Hess, 125 N. Y. 641, 26 N. E. Rep. 919; Lahr v. Railroad Co., 104 N. Y. 268, 10 N. E. Rep. 528; Story v. Railroad Co., 90 N. Y. 122; Callanan v. Gilman, 67 How. Pr. 464, 107 N. Y. 360, 14 N. E. Rep. 264; Clifford v. Dam, 81 N. Y. 52; Knowlton v. Spring Co., 57 N. Y. 518; Materne v. Horwitz, 101 N. Y. 469, 5 N. E. Rep. 331; Foley v. Speir, 100 N. Y. 552, 3 N. E. Rep. 477; Goodrich v. Houghton, (Sup.) 9 N. Y. Supp. 214; Arnot v. Coal Co., 68 N. Y. 558; Pease v. Walsh, 39 N. Y. Super. Ct. 514; McDonough v. City of Brooklyn, 1 Wkly. Dig. 390; Archer v. McDonald, 86 Hun, 194; Booth v. Mills Co., 60 N. Y. 487; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 87 N. Y. 486; Tompkins v. Dudley, 25 N. Y. 172; Farrell v. Mayor, etc., (Sup.) 5 N. Y. Supp. 672; Anderson v. Equitable G. L. Co., 12 Daly, 462; Cohen v. Mayor, etc., 113 N. Y. 532, 21 N. E. Rep. 700. For these reasons, and those assigned by the trial judge on making the order appealed from, the order must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.  