
    GEORGE H. STEVENS, RESPONDENT, v. FERDINAND COIRIN AND JOSEPH FORMANNS, BUILDERS, AND FERDINAND COIRIN AND LEONIE COIRIN, OWNERS, APPELLANTS.
    Submitted July 7, 1919
    Decided November 17, 1919.
    . On appeal from the Supreme Court, in. which the following per curiam was filed:
    
      “This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered upon the verdict of a jury.
    “Plaintiff, Stevens, and the defendants entered into a contract December 1st, 1915, whereby the plaintiff agreed to furnish io the defendants general plans and information necessary to enable an immediate construction of a practical working plant and process for the manufacture of carbolic acid; and if tbe defendants should determine to go ahead with the erection and construction of the plant, the plaintiff would complete detailed plans and information, and would supervise the actual construction and erection of the plant.
    “This suit was brought to recover compensation for such services.
    “The contract is somewhat involved and requires careful reading before settling upon the merits of the controversy here.
    “The only ground of appeal requiring consideration is that regarding the charge of the trial judge. We conclude that the judge in his charge properly construed the contract, hearing in mind that it must be construed as a whole, and not with reference to isolated paragraphs alone. So considered, it seems clear that the construction put upon it by the judge was proper.
    “The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.”
    For the appellants, William V. Rosenkrms.
    
    For the respondent, RaymondClancy, Marsh & Ellis.
    
   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, Miniurn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, Ackerson, JJ. 11.

For reversal — Parker, J. 1.  