
    Keefer v. Union County, Appellant.
    
      Contract—Extra work—Question of fact—Province of jury.
    
    In an action against a county to recover a balance alleged to be due on a contract, where the controversy in the case turns on the question of fact whether the work done by the plaintiff was outside of. his contract, and if so, whether it was done on the order of the county commissioners, and no errors appear in the rulings on evidence nor the instructions to the jury, a verdict and judgment for plaintiff will be sustained.
    Argued May 8, 1905.
    Appeal, No. 323, Jan. T., 1904, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Union Co., May T., 1900, No. 34, on verdict for plaintiff in case of George W. Keefer v. Union County and the County of Northumberland.
    Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat and Elkin, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit to recover a balance alleged to be due for the construction of a bridge, over the west branch of the Susquehanna river, between Milton in Northumberland county and West Milton in Union county. Before McClure, P. J.
    Verdict for plaintiff for #5,443.27, on which judgment was entered for #3,294.87, all above that sum having been remitted. Defendant appealed.
    
      Errors assigned were (1-63) various rulings on evidence and various instructions.
    
      William B. Follmer and Andrew A. Leiser, for appellant.
    
      George B. Beimensngder, with him Philip B. Linn, for appellee.
    June 22, 1905:
   Per Curiam

The sixty-three assignments of error raise no question of law which requires discussion. The controversy in the case was whether the work done by plaintiff was outside of his contract and if so whether it was done on the order of the county commissioners. The jury found the facts in his favor, and the court, after a very careful review, required a remittitur from plaintiff as to certain items and approved the verdict as thus modified. We find no error in his conclusion.

Judgment affirmed.  