
    CORWIN v. BREAKSTONE, GROSSMAN & CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    May 19, 1904.)
    1. Contract's—Execution—Evidence.
    Where it appeared that a contract was sent to defendant at its place of business with a request for defendant’s signature, and that it came back by mail signed by defendant’s usual signature, its execution of the contract was shown.
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Tenth District.
    Action by Cecil S. Corwin against Breakstone, Grossman & Co. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and TRUAX and SCOTT, JJ.
    
      A. Breakstone, for appellant.
    Harris, Corwin, Gunnison & Meyers, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an attempt ón the part of the defendants to get out of a contract made by them by means of a legal technicality. We are of the opinion that it was proved on the trial that the contract in question was made by the defendants, because it was sent to them mail at their place of business with a request for their signature, came back by mail signed with the same signature used by the corpora-, tion in its business dealings.

Judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.  