
    BUEHLER v. JOHNSON.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
    May 21, 1914.)
    Contracts (§ 322)—Action—Evidence.
    Where the contract was intended to provide for the furnishing of all the models specified on the plans, the refusal to allow a witness to state from the plans the models not furnished was error.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 1306, 1307, 1339, 1347, 1348, 1465, 1492, 1534-1542, 1754, 1768, 1772, 1801, 1802, 1804r-1808, 1815, 1816; Dec. Dig. § 322.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.
    Action by Leon M. Buehler against Arland W. Johnson. Judgment for plaintiff after a trial by the court without a jury, and defendant appeals.
    Reversed, and new trial ordered.
    Argued May term, 1914, before GUY, BIJUR, and PENDLETON, JJ.
    Hart & Tompkins, of New York City (Millard E. Tompkins, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
    M. A. Vosburgh, of New York City, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

The refusal of the court to allow the witness to state from the “plans” the models not furnished was error. The contract was clearly intended to provide for the furnishing of all the models specified on the “plans.”

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.  