
    LOUIS VAN NEST, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. SYMAN HIRSCH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    Argued November 23, 1914—
    Decided March 1, 1915.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court.
    The plaintiff-respondent recovered a judgment in the District Court of the city of Plainfield, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in a per curiam which reads as follows:
    “The plaintiff-appellee recovered judgment in the District Court of the city of Plainfield, county of Union, for the sum of four hundred eighty-seven dollars and seventy cents ($487.7'0), together with costs of suit, against the defendant-appellant, for lumber and building materials sold and delivered by the plaintiff-appellee to one Simon Roth, the contractor, in the erection and construction of a building belonging to the defendant-appellant, on Watchung avenue, in the city of Plainfield.
    “We think the questions presented for our consideration in this case are questions of fact, which, the District Court has determined, and which are not reviewable here, where there is evidence upon which the finding of the trial court (‘an he supported.
    “The trial court found as facts that the goods in question had been delivered by the plaintiff; tiiat the stop-notice was duly served upon the defendant, and that the defendant had actually paid to Roth, the contractor, the fifth and sixth payments in advance of the requirements of the contract.
    “The court also found that the plaintiff had not accepted the promissory note tendered to him by the contractor, and that his acceptance of it at all was dependent upon the endorsement of it by the defendant.
    “These findings resulted properly in a judgment for the plaintiff. Slingerland v. Binns, 11 Dick. 413.
    “The objections presented by the defendant regarding the admission of testimony, and the rulings upon the evidence admitted, cannot be held to be injurious to him in this view of the case, since the essential questions of fact upon which the plaintiff’s claim depended were supported by the finding.
    “The judgment will be affirmed.”
    For the appellant, William Newcorn.
    
    For the respondent, Walter L. Hetfield, Jr.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed for the reasons stated in its per curiam.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Black, Bogert, Ybedenbuegh, White, Herpextteimer, Williams, JJ. 11.

For reversal—Hone.  