
    Gray v. American Bank-Note Co.
    
      (Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.
    
    June 1, 1891.)
    Appeal—Decision—Delay to Complete Case.
    "Where the court on appeal has .announced that it cannot consider the objection that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict, because the case on appeal did not purport to contain all the evidence, but the decision is withheld so as to enable appellant to cure the defect in the case, and it does not appear, at the next term of the appellate court, held several months later, that appellant has taken any steps in the matter, the judgment will be affirmed.
    Appeal from city court, general term.
    Action by Charles E. Gray against the American Bank-Note" Company to recover a commission of 10 per cent, on an order for $3,000 worth of work alleged to have been obtained by plaintiff for defendant through one A. H. Bronson, the agent of the National Bank of Honduras, to engrave and print for said bank, certain notes and certificates. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the general term of the city court, and defendant again appeals.
    Argued before Allen, C. J., and Bischoff and Pryor, JJ.
    
      Isaac L. Miller, for appellant. Wilder, Wilder & Lynch, (William R. Wilder, of counsel,) for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

On the argument of this appeal at the general term in January last, it appeared that the only ground of alleged error assigned by appellant was the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict upon which the judgment appealed from was entered, and the court thereupon announced that it was precluded from reviewing the evidence, inasmuch as the case on appeal does not purport to contain all the evidence taken on the trial. Arnstein v. Haulenbeek, 11 N. Y. Supp. 701, (Com. PI. N. Y. Dec. 1890.) At the request of appellant’s counsel, however,- decision of the appeal was deferred, so that he might have opportunity of causing the case to be resettled, and the requisite certificate to be supplied, and so enable us to dispose of this appeal on the merits. Since then there has been sufficient time within which the necessary application could have been made to and determined by the court below; and as a settlement of the case has not been brought to our attention, and we have not been advised that an application for -such resettlement is pending and undetermined, we feel justified in disposing of this appeal, which must be as intimated on the argument. The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.  