#### WILLIAM M. PIATT v. TOWN OF HILLSBORO.

(Filed 5 January, 1938.)

Appeal by plaintiff from Parker, J., at June Term, 1937, of OraNge.

Civil action for breach of contract.

Plaintiff alleges that in 1926 he was engaged by the town of Hillsboro to design and supervise the construction of a proposed municipal waterworks and sewerage system, his compensation to be 6% of the cost; $300 to be due and payable upon completion of preliminary surveys, and balance as the work progressed. Plaintiff further alleges that he was paid the first item of $300, and nothing more; that other engineers have been engaged to complete the work for which he was employed, and that the estimated balance due under his contract is $7,688.48.

*836Defendant denies tbat plaintiff bolds any valid contract sucb as be alleges; admits tbat be was paid $300 for a preliminary survey in 1926, and avers tbat tbe project was tben abandoned as too expensive.

Later, in 1935, under different circumstances and witb tbe aid of tbe Public Works Administration, tbe defendant again proposed to install a municipal waterworks and sewerage system. Plaintiff was not awarded tbe engineering contract for tbis new project; whereupon be sues upon an alleged contract made witb him in 1926.

Tbe validity of plaintiff’s contract being denied, an issue as to its due execution and existence was submitted to tbe jury and answered in favor of tbe defendant. From judgment thereon, plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.

J. L. Morehead and Graham & Eshridge for plaintiff, appellant.

Bonner D. Sawyer for defendant, appellee.

Pee Curiam.

Plaintiff seeks to recover upon tbe principle announced in White Co. v. Hickory, 195 N. C., 42, 141 S. E., 494. But as tbe jury has found tbat be bolds no valid contract witb tbe defendant, bis action fails. Realty Co. v. Charlotte, 198 N. C., 564, 152 S. E., 686. Tbis ends tbe matter, even though tbe issues submitted, over objection, may not meet witb entire approval.

Tbe result'will not be disturbed.

No error.