
    SELIGMAN v. LINDER.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    May 12, 1909.)
    Trial (§ 315)—Verdict—Compromise Verdict.
    Where plaintiff was entitled to $450 or nothing, a compromise verdict of $250 will not be sustained.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Dec. Dig. § 315.]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.
    
      Action by William. Seligman against William Linder. From d judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for new trial, defendant appeals.
    Reversed, and new trial, ordered.
    Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and DAYTON and GOFF, JJ.
    Schimelman & Goldstein (Joseph J. Schwartz, of counsel), for appellant.
    Joseph Gans, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DAYTON, J.

Plaintiff’s claim is that in June defendant agreed to pay him $450 for certain deeds, releases, and discontinuances to save delay, receivership fees, and further expenses of foreclosure. The papers procured by him, if from the proper parties and in proper form, are variously dated from June until the following September, and were not availed of. The record discloses ample justification for the opinion of the trial judge that the verdict was against the weight of •evidence, and should have been for the defendant. This seems so clear that his refusal to set it aside cannot be sustained. It may be said, in addition, that the verdict for $250 was a compromise. Plaintiff was entitled to $450 or nothing.

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