
    Dulles-Baldwin Electric Drill Company, Respondent, v. Pittsburg Contracting Company, Appellant.
    (Submitted June 15, 1917;
    decided July 11, 1917.)
    
      Dulles-Baldwin El. Drill Co. v. Pittsburg Contracting Co., 166 App. Div. 921, affirmed.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, .entered January 29, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover balance alleged to be due for electric drills, repair and supply parts sold and delivered to defendant. On the trial defendant was permitted to amend its answer so as to counterclaim for a like amount for breach of the warranty contained in the contract for the sale of the drills, claiming that the extra parts were furnished under an agreement to replace defective parts and that the drills delivered were not of first-class material or workmanship and were defective and that the repair parts delivered and sued for were so delivered to supply said defects in the original drills. The issue particularly litigated at the trial was whether defendant had, under the written contract, as construed by the court, given plaintiff, respondent, “immediate written notice of such defects” in the drills.
    
      John R. Dos Passos, Cyril F. Dos Passos and John Ambrose Goodwin for appellant.
    
      Martin Conboy for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Ouddeback, Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ.-  