Matzen

This is an appeal from the judgment on the judgment-roll alone, in an action where the plaintiff sought to recover the reasonable value of plumbing furnished to the defendant for two certain jobs, on which the defendant was the general contractor.

The sole question in the case is whether or not the oral agreement set forth in the answer, and found by the court to have been entered into by the parties to this suit, was supported by a sufficient consideration.

We think with the,trial court that it was. The plaintiff was a sub-contractor, and had furnished to the defendant, a general contractor, the necessary plumbing on two certain jobs. Part of the amount due to the plaintiff had been paid to him, when in January, 1912, the defendant called a meeting of its creditors, at which meeting the plaintiff was present. The defendant’s representative there explained to its assembled creditors that the company was financially embarrassed by reason of the failure of two of its largest debtors to make payments in accordance with their contracts, whereupon it was agreed between the defendant and its creditors, including the plaintiff, that if the defendant would file the necessary liens and…