
    Howard T. Marston et al., Appellants, v. Gustav A. Baerenklau, Respondent.
    (New York Common Pleas—General Term,
    June, 1895.)
    When the complaint counts only on a special agreement to pay a certain, sum for a designated service, and the plaintiff’s evidence establishes-such agreement, and no amendment of the complaint is requested,, proof of the value of the service is inadmissible.
    When, in such case, the plaintiff acquiesces in the submission to the jury of the single issue as to the special 'agreement, he cannot be heard on appeal to object that he should have been permitted to recover on a. quantum meruit.
    
    
      Marston v. Baerenklau, 11 Mise. Rep. 620, affirmed.
    Appeal from judgment of General Term, City Court,, affirming judgment on verdict and order denying new trial. Action by a firm of attorneys for a professional fee.
    The opinion further states the case.
    
      William E. Morris, for appellants.
    
      James P. Niemann, for respondent.-
   Pryor, J.

The action is solely and exclusively on a special' agreement by the defendant to pay the plaintiffs $250 for the-probate of a will. The complaint neither makes claim for the value of the service noralleges the value of the service.. And so was plaintiffs’ evidence. The testimony of Eilau was to an express contract by the defendant to pay the plaintiffs $250 for the specific service. The case was so presented to the jury in the charge of the court •—• as depending upon an agreement to pay that sum —■ and the plaintiffs acquiesced in „ such submission of that single issue. How, now, may they object that they were not allowed to claim the value of their service and recover upon a quantum meruit ? Suggesting no amendment of the complaint on the trial, they are not to be permitted on appeal to impute error to the court in excluding proof of a cause of action of which before there ivas no intimation. By the pleadings and by plaintiffs’ evidence the ■defendant was admonished to prepare for a trial of no other-issue than the fact of the alleged agreement; and he was not . to be surprised by the litigation of another and inconsistent ■controversy. Romeyn v. Sickles, 108 N. Y. 650.

It results that the learned trial judge ruled rightly in ■excluding testimony as to the value of plaintiffs’ services.

The other exceptions as to evidence are equally untenable.

Explanation of plaintiffs’ demand upon Baaden for a part of the fee received by him was clearly in order, as tending to support defendant’s contention that their client was not he, but Baaden. So, proof that the plaintiffs agreed to assist Baaden in the probate in requital of past favors negatives the .allegation of an agreement with defendant for compensation.

The evidence that the executor never employed plaintiffs went straight to the main issue in litigation.

If the court erred in permitting proof of a possible allowance to plaintiffs by the surrogate — to which only a general ■objection is interposed—-the error was repaired by the ■explicit and repeated instruction that such allowance would not affect the validity of plaintiffs’ claim under the alleged ■contract.

Plaintiffs complain that the verdict is against the evidence ■and weight of evidence,” but as they made no motion for the', direction of a Arerdict in their favor, no exception presents •the question whether, there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, and however unjnst it may be, this court is powerless to give relief.” Schwinger v. Raymond, 105 N. Y. 648. We may add, however, that upon an attentive examination of the evidence our conclusion is in accordance with the jury’s. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Bookstaver and Bischofe, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  