
    CONRAD C. HOFFMEIER AND EUGENE HOFFMEIER, &c., RESPONDENTS, v. HENRY TROST, APPELLANT.
    Argued June 23, 1914
    Decided October 16, 1914.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
    “The suit was for a balance due under a stop-notice filed by a sub-contractor against the owner. Tire question as to whether the architect’s certificate had been waived by the owner was one of fact under the testimony and the circumstances. Byrne v. Sisters of St. Elizabeth, 45 N. J. L. 216.
    “'The finding of that fact where there is testimony and a situation from which it may be inferred, is not reviewable here. Burr v. Adams Express Co., 71 N. J. L. 263.
    “It was proper for the court to infer from the testimony that there was no question between the parties as to the completion of the work. It was fairly inferable that the work had been completed.
    
      “The fact that the defendant, without objection, paid the plaintiff $900 on account of the amount claimed in the stop-notice, presented a fact from which in the absence of explanatory tcstimonrq together with the other facts in the ease, satisfaction with the work done was fairly inferable.
    “We have examined the objections of the defendant regarding the admission of testimony, and find in them nothing of subslance to require specific consideration.
    “The judgment is affirmed, with costs.”
    Eor the appellant, J. Emil Walscheid.
    
    Eoi the respondent, George T). Hendrickson.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Bergen, Kalisch, Black, Vrehenburgu, Williams, JJ. 6.

For reversal — The Chief Juslice, Swayze, Parker, Bo-GERT, HePPENHEIMER, JJ. 5.  