
    Monaghan v. Woolsey.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    
    July 2, 1889.)
    Assumpsit—For Work and Labor—Evidence.
    Where it appears that defendant’s employés took his horses to plaintiff’s blacksmith shop, where they were shod by plaintiff, and that defendant received the benefit of the work, a judgment for plaintiff for the price of the work is warranted.
    Appeal from Queens county court.
    Action by James Monaghan against Edward J. Woolsey, for the price of horseshoeing. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Argued before Baiinaud, P. J., and Dyicman and Pratt, JJ.
    $. B. & D. Noble, for appellant. George T. Walker, for respondent.
   Dykman, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Queen’s county, affirming a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant after a trial in a court of a justice of the peace. The testimony before the justice was sufficient to sustain his judgment, and the affirmance in the county court must be sustained. The plaintiff is a blacksmith, and the horses of the defendant were brought to his shop to be shod by men in the employ of the defendant. The horses were shod by the plaintiff, and the defendant received the benefit of the work. Those facts are undisputed, and they are amply sufficient to justify the judgment. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.  