
    MURTHA FLOOD, Respondent, v. CALEB W. MITCHELL, Appellant.
    
      Evidence — what draft of contract inadmissible as evidence of agreement between pm'ties.
    
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on the verdict of a jury.
    The action was brought for work done in building or grading a race track. The answer denied the allegations of the complaint, and set up a contract by which plaintiff agreed to finish the track; alleged that he had neglected to do so, and claimed damages therefor. The court held, that the draft of a contract, unexecuted, drawn up in. accordance with what the person drawing it supposed to be the agreement between the parties, but which did not contain their language, was not admissible in evidence. That the cases of Halsey v. Sinsebaugh (15 N. Y., 485), and Russell v. H. R. R. R. Co. (17 id., 134), did not authorize such evidence.
    The jury found in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.
    
      A. Pond, for the appellant.
    
      L. B. Pike, for the respondent.
   Opinion by

Boardman, J.

Present — Learned, P. J., and Boardman, J.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  