22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T49f,This action was brought by plaintiff to recover $1,196.59, alleged to be due from defendant under a contract for the construction and electrical equipment of a street railroad from San Jose to Santa Clara, and the further sum of $17,328.49 damages for an alleged refusal and neglect of the defendant to perform its part of said contract. The answer denied defendant’s alleged failure to perform its contract, and that anything was due plaintiff; and by way of counterclaim alleged that plaintiff quit and abandoned the contract, to defendant’s damage in the sum of $100,000. The cause was tried before a jury, which rendered the following verdict: “We, the jury in the above-entitled cause, find a verdict for the defendant for its costs. ’ ’ Judgment was entered upon the verdict in favor of the defendant for its costs in the sum of $273.50. Plaintiff took a bill of exceptions, and moved thereon for a new trial, which was denied, and appeals from the judgment and the order denying a new trial. Appellant contends for a reversal upon two grounds: We concur: Vanclief, C.; Temple, C. For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order are affirmed.24:T4b5,

This action was brought by plaintiff to recover $1,196.59, alleged to be due from defendant under a contract for the construction and electrical equipment of a street railroad from San Jose to Santa Clara, and the further sum of $17,328.49 damages for an alleged refusal and neglect of the defendant to perform its part of said contract. The answer denied defendant’s alleged failure to perform its contract, and that anything was due plaintiff; and by way of counterclaim alleged that plaintiff quit and abandoned the contract, to defendant’s damage in the sum of $100,000. The cause was tried before a jury, which rendered the following verdict: “We, the jury in the above-entitled cause, find a verdict for the defendant for its costs. ’ ’ Judgment was entered upon the verdict in favor of the defendant for its costs in the sum of $273.50. Plaintiff took a bill of exceptions, and moved thereon for a new trial, which was denied, and appeals from the judgment and the order denying a new trial.

Appellant contends for a reversal upon two grounds:

We concur: Vanclief, C.; Temple, C.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order are affirmed.

25:T460,

Verdict—Specifying Amount—Costs.—Code of Civil Procedure, section 626, provides that where a defendant establishes a claim for the recovery of money, in an action for the recovery of money, greater than the claim established by plaintiff, the jury must find the amount of the recovery. Held, that a verdict for defendant “for its costs” is not within the meaning of the statute, because such a verdict is for costs only, and there is no recovery by either party.

Contract—Action for Services—Evidence.—In an action to recover for services by plaintiff in constructing an electric railroad for defendant, and for damages by reason of defendant’s failure to perform its part of the contract, defendant set up by way of counterclaim that plaintiff had abandoned the contract before completing the road, and it appeared that the road had been sold in an uncompleted state. Held, that evidence of the price for which it was sold Was inadmissible, since such evidence would not affect the amount of damages defendant would be entitled to by reason of plaintiff’s failure to complete the road.