
    HENRY CHAMBERLAIN, Respondent, v. ALFRED BRADY, Appellant.
    
      Meal estate.—Damages.—Architects' fees paid, when not proper damages for breach of contn'act to convey premises.—Verdict—when may be corrected by court.
    
    Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Russell, J.
    
      Decided December 30, 1882.
    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered on a verdict directed for plaintiff at trial term.
    Appeal by defendant, from order amending the verdict directed, by increasing the amount of it.
    This suit was instituted by the plaintiff to recover $5,000 paid by him to the defendant February 3, 1881, upon (and to obtain) a contract for a conveyance, to be delivered upon the fifth of the following May, of certain real property in this city, the expenses of searching title ($58.55) and $600 expense incurred for architect’s plan of a building proposed to be erected by plaintiff upon the premises in question; with interest upon the several items, defendant having been guilty of a breach of the contract on his part.-
    As part of the damages, the plaintiff was allowed $659, as the amount due by him to an architect whom he had employed to make plans for a building to be erected on the premises to be conveyed by defendant under the' contract and in anticipation of the performance of the contract.
    
      The court at General Term said: “The contract did not contemplate that the plaintiff should prepare to build as if he were owner before he became owner. It left him, until its promised performance, without the title or power or interests of owner. The expense, therefore, was not within the contemplation of the parties, at the time of making the contract. Nor was the expense an ordinary or anticipated consequence of the making of the contract. This amount should therefore be deducted from the amount of the verdict and the judgment should be modified in accordance. As modified the judgment should be affirmed without costs of the appeal to either party.
    “ As the jury gave the amount of the verdict directed as a formal matter it was within the power of the court after-wards to correct the error in the addition, that had been made at the time of the verdict. The order appealed from should be affirmed with $10 costs.”
    
      George H. Forster, for appellant.
    
      Stanlay & Clark and Edwin B. Smith, for respondent.
   Opinion Per Curiam.  