#### Joseph Ungar, Defendant in Error, v. E. F. Snydacker, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 19,104.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John R. Caverly, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 23, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Joseph Ungar against E. F. Snydacker to recover a balance claimed to be dne to plaintiff from defendant for work in making alterations on defendant’s house. The plaintiff’s claim was for labor performed for twenty and one-half days at four dollars per day, and for certain materials purchased for defendant at his request. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for eighty-two dollars, defendant brings error.

Mayer, Meyer, Austrian & Platt, for plaintiff in error.

Louis Brandes, for defendant in error.

Abstract of the Decision.

Master and servant, § 84 * —when judgment for wages sustained by the evidence. In an action for a balance alleged to be due for work and certain materials furnished by plaintiff, in making alterations for defendant’s house, the defense being that there was a verbal agreement that plaintiff was to furnish all materials and that seven hundred and fifty dollars was to he the maximum sum to be paid by defendant for the necessary labor and materials, held that a verdict for plaintiff on conflicting evidence was not manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number, ...

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.