
    David Mackay, Jr., Resp’t, v. Aaron Kahn, App’lt.
    
      (New York Common Pleas, General Term,
    
    
      Filed February 1, 1892.)
    
    1. Bills and notes—Condition precedent.
    When a due hill is given for an account, which expressly states that it is not to he negotiated and that no suit is to he brought on it, its return ccannot he required as a condition of maintaining an action on the account.
    2. Account stated—Evidence op.
    Proof that monthly statements were rendered defendant, in which he was named as debtor and to which no objection was offered, and that he afterwards verbally conceded an indebtedness, and gave his due-bill, is sufficient evidence of an account stated.
    Appeal from a judgment rendered in the district court of the of New York for the eighth judicial district.
    
      L. B. Bunnell, for appl’t; Maclay & Forrest, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

This was an action upon an account stated between the parties, for work, labor and services rendered and materials furnished by the respondent to the appellant.

The appellant does not seek a reversal Because substantial justice has not been done by the judgment, but on technical grounds which leave unaffected the defendant’s liability for. the amount claimed and recovered; but insists that before commencing his action the respondent took what is claimed to be a due bill from the appellant, which he neither returned nor - offered to return before or at the trial. The paper referred to by the appellant as a due bill is not in reality such, but a mere acknowledgment of indebtedness and of the" correctness of the accounts before rendered to him; it expressly says tjiat it is not to be negotiated and that no suit was to be brought upon it. ■ Therefore,:;the return of that paper could not be required as a condition of maintaining the action.

The' plaintiff proved that monthly statements of the account for labor and materials were rendered the defendant, in which he was named as debtor, and that no objection was offered to any of them by the defendant; and that he afterwards verbally conceded an indebtedness of $100 and gave the paper which has been before reférred to. This was sufficient evidence of an account stated. Bottum v. Moore, 13 Daly, 464; Manchester Paper Co. v. Moore, 104 N. Y., 580; 5 St. Rep., 747; Horton v. Brown, 102 N. Y., 698.

It cannot be successfully contended that this alleged due ■ bill should have been sued upon instead of the account, when by its-very terms it was not to be.

It is contended that there was a dispute as to the amount of plaintiff’s claim, and the paper acknowledgment was the result of a compromise, and, therefore, it became a substitute for plaintiff’s-original claim. But we think the evidence utterly fails to disclose any proof that the account was ever disputed. The defendant’s own testimony is to the effect that the acknowledgment was-given to show that the work had been done on the property and what the amount-of it was, in order that Mr. Mackay might show it to his creditors and-thereby increase his credit. The additional-amount of two dollars and twenty-six cents was not successfully-disputed.

The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Bookstaver and Bischoff, JJ., concur.  