
    SMITH et al. v. HOCTOR.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    November 29, 1907.)
    Appeal—Excessive Verdict—Reversal.
    Where, in an action for attorney’s services, the amount of the verdict for plaintiffs indicated that the value of the services were overestimated, the judgment should be reversed, unless plaintiffs stipulate to reduce the judgment to a proper amount
    [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 3, Appeal and Error. § 4464.]
    
      Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eleventh District.
    Action by Andrew J. Smith and another against Edward Hoctor,. as administrator of the estate of John Hoctor, deceased. Erom a Municipal Court judgment- in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed, on condition.
    See 99 N. Y. Supp. 843.
    Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and EEVENTRITT and ERLANGER, JJ.
    James H. Deigman, for appellant.
    Beyer & Weldon, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs sue to recover the value of legal' services performed by them in an action brought on behalf of defendant’s intestate in his lifetime against one Kohn for personal injuries, in which case the intestate discharged plaintiffs and substituted another attorney. The plaintiffs detailed the- services rendered by them and' recovered a judgment in the sum of $250. We think the value of the services has been overestimated and that $75 would be fair compensation.

The judgment will be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs-to appellant to abide the event, unless the plaintiffs stipulate to reduce the judgment to the sum of $75, in which event the judgment, as-reduced, will be affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.  