
    SHUBERT v. LINCOLN et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    March 23, 1905.)
    Joint Contract—Sufficiency of Evidence.
    Evidence that defendant had a beneficial interest in plaintiff’s work and materials, and that he knowingly accepted the same, is sufficient to render him liable on the contract made by his codefendant with plaintiff, whether defendants were partners or not
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Twelfth District.
    Action by Herman T. Shubert against Samuel S. Lincoln and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
    Argued before SCOTT, O’GORMAN, and BLANCHARD, JJ.
    Charles La Rue, for appellants.
    Peter Schmuck, for respondent.
   BLANCHARD, J.

The plaintiff brings this action to recover the value of work performed and for materials furnished to the defendants by him at their request. The allegations of the complaint charged the defendants with a joint and several liability, and the evidence that'they were copartners was properly received as tending to show such liability. There is sufficient evidence in the case outside of that relating to the partnership to establish the facts that the appellant had a beneficial interest in the plaintiff’s work and materials, and that he knowingly, accepted the benefits thereof, thereby ratifying the contract made by the defendant Losee with the plaintiff.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.  