Page 383

• Format: Text
• Language: unknown
• Published: North Dakota State Library
• Subjects: Politics & Government; Canfield; Luke; Morse; morse; Ruff
• Online Access: http://cdm16921.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16921coll3/id/34544

356 37 NORTH DAKOTA REPORTS Landis Mack Co. v. Konantz Saddlery Co. 17 N. D. 310, 116 N. W. 333; West v. Northern P. R. Co. 13 N. D. 231, 100 N. W. 254; Johns v. Ruff, 12 N. D. 79, 95 N. W. 440. A motion based on the insufficiency of the evidence must point out wherein the evidence really is insufficient, or for what reasons it is so claimed. Code, § 7656 Updegraff v. Tucker, 24 N. D. 171, 139 N. W. 366 Gagnier v. Fargo, 12 N. D. 219, 96 N. W. 841 Flora v. Mathwig, 19 N. D. 4, 121 N. W. 63 Pickert v. Rugg, 1 N. D. 230, 46 X. W. 446; Anderson v. Medbery, 16 S. D. 329, 92 N. W. 10S7; Buchanan v. Occident Elevator Co. 33 N. D. 347, 157 N. W. 122; Morris v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. 32 N. D. 366, 155 N. W. 861. Where there is a conflict in the evidence, a motion for directed verdict is properly overruled. Pewonka v. Stewart, 13 N. D. 117, 99 N. W. 1080, 16 Am. Neg. Rep. 540 Severtson v. Northern P. R. Co. 32 N. D. 200, 155 N. W. 11 Dring v. St. Lawrence Twp. 23 S. D. 624, 122 N. W. 664; Edwards v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 21 S. D. 504, 110 N. W. 832 Higgs v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. 16 X. D. 446, 15 L.R.A.(N.S) 1162, 114 N. W. 722, 15 Ann. Cas. 97; Houghton Implement Co. v. Vavrowski, 19 N. D. 594, 125 X. W. 1024 Grasinger v. Lucas, 24 S. D. 42, 123 N. W. 77. In no event would plaintiff be entitled on this appeal to an order for judgment. iEtna Indemnity Co. v. Sehroeder, 12 N. D. 110, 95 N. W. 436. Defendant pleaded and proved that he was a mere middleman who simply brought plaintiff and the landowner together and allowed them to make their own deal. Upon such showing he is entitled to recover. Leathers v. Canfield, 45 L.R. A. 51, annotation 19 Cyc. 234 (i) Clark v. Allen, 125 Cal. 276, 57 Pac. 985; Abel v. Disbrow, 15 App. Div. 536, 44 N. Y. Supp. 573 Geery v. Pollock, 16 App. Div. 321, 44 N. Y. Supp. 673; Litts v. Morse, 145 Wis. 472, 130 N. W. 460; King v. Reed, 24 Cal. App. 229, 141 Pac. 41 McLure v. Luke, 24 L.R.A.(N.S.) 659, 84 C. C. A. 1, 154 Fed. 647; Redmond Bros. v. Ilenke, 137 Iowa, 228, 114 N. W. 885 Wasser v. Western Land Securi ties Co. 97 Minn. 460, 107 N. W. 160 Darrow Invest. Co. v. Breyman. 32 Wash. 234, 73 Pac. 363; Langford v. Issenhuth, 28 S. D. 451, 134 N. W. 889.