
    TANENBAUM et al. v. FEIST.
    (City Court of New York,
    General Term.
    May 9, 1893.)
    Money Paid—Action to Recover—Sufficiency of Evidence.
    Where, in an action for money paid, laid out, and expended for defendant at his request, there is no proof of any. direction by defendant to plaintiffs to pay the money, and plaintiffs fail to submit to nonsuit, it is proper to direct a verdict for defendant.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by Moses Tanenbaum and others against Simon Feist to recover for moneys paid, laid out, and expended by plaintiffs for defendant at his request. From a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury directed by the court in favor of defendant, plaintiffs appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before EHRLICH, C. J., and HEWBURGrER, J.
    Benno Loewy, for appellants.
    Howe & Hummel, for respondent.
   EHRLICH, C. J.

The action, instead of being for damages resulting from the breach of a special contract, was to recover for moneys paid, laid out, and expended for the defendant, at his request, There was no proof of any direction from the defendant to pay the money and no warrant for a recovery on any such cause of action. The exceptions taken are without merit. The plaintiffs having failed to submit to a nonsuit, the direction to find for the defendant was right, and the judgment entered on the verdict must be affirmed, with costs.  