
    BARTLETT v. REICH.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    November 27, 1908.)
    Appeal and Error (§ 1008)—Review—Questions of Fact.
    Where, in an action for services, the evidence warranted the conclusion of an implied agreement to pay their fair value, the judgment for plaintiff will be affirmed.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3955-3909: Dec. Dig. § 1008.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Brooklyn.
    Action in the Municipal Court by Homer L. Bartlett against Otto Reich. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed,
    
      Argued before WOODWARD, HOOKER, GAYNOR, RICH, and MILLER, JJ.
    Cornelius J. Early, for appellant.
    H. C. Underhill, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   WOODWARD, J.

There is no dispute that the plaintiff, a civil engineer, performed certain services at the request on two separate dates, for which he has not been paid. This action was brought to recover the fair value of such services. The defense asserted is that the plaintiff, on doing some work prior to that for which he now claims, .agreed to perform the services in suit for $7.50 -Ame-half the amount which was charged for the original service. The plaintiff denies this, and the question litigated was whether this was the agreement or whether there was an implied agreement on the part of the defendant to pay the fair value of the services. This latter view was accepted by the trial court, and we are of the opinion that the evidence warranted this conclusion.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with, costs. All concur.  