
    SEIDLER v. SCHRECK.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    February 23, 1900.)
    Appeal—Sufficiency op Evidence.
    A judgment for plaintiff will not be disturbed upon appeal where there is evidence sufficient to sustain it.
    Appeal from city court of New York, general term.
    Action by Siegfried Seidler against Philip Schreck to recover for services rendered. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before BEEKMAN, P. J., and GIEGERIOH and O’GORMAN, JJ.
    T. H. Smith, for appellant.
    R. Prasst, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The record in this case is very unsatisfactory, but, summing up the proofs taken in connection with the pleadings, which are in writing, the result seems to be that neither party recognized the writing which was put in evidence as embodying a genuine and enforceable agreement between them. Rejecting this, there was evidence before the court that the plaintiff rendered to the defendant the services for which he sues, and that the defendant agreed to pay him therefor the amount which he has recovered in this action. The defense that has been interposed, charging the plaintiff with fraud in the matter, does not seem to be sustained by the proofs. At all events, it presented a simple question of fact, which has been determined by the court below adversely to the defendant. We see no sufficient reason for reversing the judgment.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  