
    LIVINGSTON MIDDLEITCH CO. v. NEW YORK COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    December 29, 1899.)
    Stability of Client—Briefs Printed for Attorney.
    A client is not liable for work in printing briefs in his case when the •work was done for and the credit extended to the attorney without instructions from or notice to the client.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by the Livingston Middleitch Company against the New YTork ¡College of Dentistry. From a judgment for. defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before FITZSIMONS, C. J., and O’DWYER and HASCALL, J J.
    George H. Fletcher, for appellant.
   PER CURIAM.

There seems to be no sufficient reason given by the appellant for disturbing the judgment appealed from. A reading of the documentary proofs, especially the exhibits of defendant, confirms this determination, and the oral portion of plaintiff’s evidence does not disturb it. The' cases cited quite fail in establishing the principle contended for,—that an attorney at law, when ordering printing in the client’s case, thereby makes liable the client, without special notice or instruction; and the record before us shows that credit was given and the work was done for the attorney upon request of his clerk.

The rulings of the court below can be sustained on good ground, .and the judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed, with costs and disbursements.  