
    Henry Grube, Respondent, v. John F. Schultheiss et al., Appellants.
    (Submitted January 15, 1874;
    decided May term, 1874.)
    This was an action to enforce a mechanic’s lien. The only questions were, as to the performance of plaintiffs contract.
    He contracted to build a large hall for defendants, according to plans and specifications, and “ according to the directions and the entire satisfaction” of the architects; the work to be completed by the first of June, the plaintiff to forfeit fifty dollars for every day thereafter until its completion. If the work was not prosecuted to the satisfaction of the architects they were authorized to engage additional labor. The work was not completed until the latter part of -Jnne, and defendants claimed it was not done according to contract. It appeared the work was done according to the architects’’ directions and to their entire satisfaction. The referee found it was done according to the contract and to the satisfaction of the architects, and that the delay was caused by defendants, and gave judgment for the amount of plaintiffs claim. Held, that the work having been done under the direction, and to the satisfaction of the^architects, that was a sufficient compliance with the contract (Smith v. Brady, 17 N. Y., 173; Stewart v. Keteltas, 36 id., 388; Wyckoff v. Meyers, 44 id., 143); and that, as there was some evidence to support the finding that the delay was occasioned by defend- ' ants, plaintiff could not be held liable for the damage occasioned thereby. (Jones v. Judd, 4 N. Y., 412; Young v. Hunter, 6 id., 204; McConihe v. N. Y. and E. R. R. Co., 20 id., 495; Moses v. Bierling, 31 id., 462; Butler v. Tucker, 24 Wend., 447.)
    
      Geo. W. Miller for the appellants.
    
      Sackett & Lang for the respondent.
   Earl, C.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.  