cations; that the floor in one of the rooms, kept by the defendants for purposes of showing how the floor was laid and finished, is not the same as when they examined it, but has been tampered with; that the right material was not used for waterproofing the cistern; that, concerning the windows, the jamb is too light and could be easily corrected by taking the moulding off and the oakum out and setting them down on the brick.
The plaintiff testified that the architect made a change in the plans and specifications concerning a concrete coping instead of a terra cotta coping; that he received revised details therefor, which had been prepared by the architect and were left by the plaintiff in the building. There is a letter in the evidence, July 5, 1917, to such effect. The defendant’s architect denies submitting such revised details for concrete work and that the letter therefor was probably sent out by some one in his office. The plaintiff further testified that the first coping was placed under the direction of the architect’s superintendent; that he afterwards replaced it with another coping, as directed; that he did not think the criticisms concerning the roof were just, but he was willing to have the company who manufactured such roof replace it and to make allowance so to do; that the architect directed him to clean the brick, although he knew it could not be done with water and acid; that he caulked the windows, as the architect suggested, with oakum, although there is a regular caulking paste for such purpose; that he intended to put in expansion bolts in the areaway and it would cost only $5 or $6 so to do; that he used the J. M. material specified for waterproofing the cistern; that the transoms were not loose; that the walls and ceilings were not stained; that there were no doorsteps not nailed nor irregular plaster; that the fire escapes were painted twice; that he tamped the fills around the walls, but did not soak them; that it was unnecessary to do both; that there was a big pile of rubbish on the site when he commenced the construction of the building. Plaintiff conceded that the amount due him would not exceed $5,792.17.
The trial court, denying a motion of the defendant for a directed verdict, submitted the cause to the jury upon instructions requiring the jury to find a substantial compliance with the contract in order to permit plaintiff’s recovery, and that the jury upon so finding might then determine the amount due and owing the plaintiff under the contract. He charged the jury that where it appears that the contractor has endeavored to perform his contract in
