
    GAETANO FORTUNATO, RESPONDENT, v. ANTONETTA CICALESE ET AL., APPELLANTS.
    Submitted July 7, 1919
    Decided November 17, 1919.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
    “This is a suit on a building contract. The plaintiff had judgment belo'w. We consider only such grounds as present legal errors.
    “1. The appellants’ complaint tha't the plaintiff failed to produce the architect’s certificate for the final payment is without merit. The trial judge charged that they must find for the defendants unless the production of the certificate was waived. There was evidence of a waiver.
    “2. The complaint that the court, allowed testimony as to extra ivork without a written order, contrary to the requirements of the contract, is without merit. The judge properly charged that the question was: Did the contractor and the owners agree together that’a certain bit of extra work should be done, and did the owners agree to pay for it ? Headley v. Cavileer, 82 N. J. L. 735. If there was, an express contract to pay for the extra work, but the amount was not fixed, the plaintiff was entitled, as the judge charged, to a reasonable sum.
    “3. There seems to have been no objection to the alleged explanation by the plaintiff’s attorney why the height of the store ceiling was nine feet instead of ten and a half feet. What he said does not appear. Apparently, it was only by wajr of giving his explanation, of the proved facts. It was permissible for the jury to find that the fault was that of the defendant.
    “4. The defendant requested a charge that, hf the plaintiff left the work incomplete, and the omissions and departures cannot be remedied without disturbing the rest of the building, they must find a verdict for the defendants.’ Blit this could not properly be charged. If there were no other reason, it would be enough to say that it was open to the jury to find that the plaintiff was entitled to be paid for the extra work and a verdict could not be directed.
    “The judgment is affirmed, with costs.”
    Por the appellants, Gaetano M. Belfatto.
    
    Por the. respondent, Joseph J. Palitta.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasoirs set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Parker, Bergen, Mjnturn, Kalisci-i, Black, White, Heppentieimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, Ackerson, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.  