
    Green, Respondent, vs. Hanson, Appellant.
    
      February 7
    
    March 5, 1895.
    
    (1) Entire contract: Preventing performance. (2) Appeal: Exceptions.
    
    1. The evidence in this case is held to sustain a finding by the jury to the effect that defendant prevented a full performance by plaintiff of an entire contract to move certain buildings for. a specified sum.
    2. A general exception to the entire charge to the jury is of no avail when any part of the charge is correct.
    Appeal from a judgment of tbe county court of Eond du Lac county: A. E. Richtee, Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Action on contract. Tbe defendant employed tbe plaintiff to move a bouse, barn, and two sbeds for $50 for tbe entire job. Tbe plaintiff moved tbe bouse and barn, but did not move tbe sbeds. Plaintiff claims tbat be was ready to move tbe sbeds, but tbat defendant requested bim to. wait for a time, and agreed tbat be (defendant) would notify bim (plaintiff) when be wanted tbe sbeds moved, and tbat be never notified bim, but moved tbe sbeds bimself, Tbe defendant denies tbat be .requested any delay in tbe removal of tbe sbeds, or tbat be agreed to notify plaintiff when be wanted tbe sbeds moved, and claims tbat plaintiff abandoned tbe job, and tbat be (defendant) was thereby forced to move tbe sbeds bimself. It appeared tbat $20 bad been paid on tbe contract, and this action was brought to recover the balance due on the contract. A verdict for the plaintiff for $30.42 was rendered, and from judgment thereon defendant appealed.
    Eor the appellant there was a brief by Phelps <& Watson, and oral argument by J. W. Watson.
    
    
      De W. C. Priest, for the respondent
   WiNsuow, J.

The contract to move the buildings was entire, and the plaintiff could not recover upon it without fully completing it, unless full performance was excused or prevented by the defendant. Whether the defendant did prevent the plaintiff from completing the contract was the question litigated, and upon that question the evidence was conflicting. No errors in the rulings upon testimony are claimed. The jury found, upon sufficient evidence, that the defendant did prevent the full performance of the contract.

There are no exceptions to the charge, save a general exception to the entire charge. This is of no avail when any part of the charge is correct, and there can be no doubt as to the correctness of the greater part of the charge.

By the Court.— Judgment affirmed.  