
    WM. H. CURTIN MFG. CO. v. JAECKEL et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    November 23, 1910.)
    Contracts (§ 232)—Extra Work.
    Where the original contract between plaintiff and defendants for the installation of a steam-heating plant did not include certain, valves so that the installation of the valves was extra, plaintiff’s right to recover the price therefor cannot be defeated because defendants’ architect failed to include such valves in the material specified in the original contract, as directed by defendants.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 1071-1097 ; Dec. Dig. § 232.*]
    
      Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Brooklyn, First District.
    Action by the William H. Curtin Manufacturing Company against Ottilie Jaeckel and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed, and new trial ordered.
    Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and WOODWARD, BURR, RICH, and CARR, JJ.
    Philip Huntington, for appellant.
    W. A. Fischer, for respondents.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, in an action brought to recover for goods sold. The plaintiff furnished some patent valves on the risers of a steam-heating plant in the property of the defendants. As to this there is no dispute. The plaintiff furnished these goods on an order of the architect employed by the defendants, and their reasonable value was $50, according to the proof. The defendants claim that, while they directed the architect to order the installation of these goods, they thought this work was covered by another contract between them and the plaintiff for the installation of a general steam heating plant.

The undisputed proof is that no provision was made for the installation of these valves in the original contract between the plaintiff and the defendants. Therefore the work, if ordered by the defendants, was extra work unquestionably. At the trial the defendants gave evidence tending to show that they had reguested their architect to make provision for these valves in the original contract; but, as no such provision was made in the original contract, the defendants cannot defeat the right of the plaintiff to recover for work and materials furnished by their order, simply because their architect had omitted to follow out their wishes in the preparation of his plans and specifications for work to be done under the original contract.

The judgment of the Municipal Court should be reversed, and a new trial ordered; costs to abide the event. All concur.  