1014 HOLLAND FURNACE CO. V. SPINNENWEBER. [179 HOLLAND FURNACE COMPANY V. SPINNENWEBER. Opinion delivered July 8, 1929. ' - APPEAL AND ERROR—CONCLUSIVENESS OF DIRECTED vErancT. -Where each of the parties asked for a directed verdict, and no other instructions, and the court directed a verdict in favor of the appellee, the? verdict.will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial testimony. Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court ; John C.'Ash-ley, Judge ; affirmed. E. Newton Ellis, Geo: M. Booth and Walter L. Pope, for appellant. • . . • Schoonover & Schoonover, for appellee. KIRBY, J. This suit was brought in the justice court upon a claim for commissiOn for making the sale of .a furnace for appellant company, and, upon appeal to the circuit court, where the complaint• was . amended, Judgment was rendered for • appellee for $52, the amount claimed, from which the appeal is prosecuted. • • . . . Appellant denied having ever 'made any agreement with appellee for payment of . commissions 'upon sales made by him or any of its agents, and any indebtedness to appellee on that account. - There is a lot of testimony in the record which it would serve no useful purpose to review, since the majority of the court has concluded that the testimony *was sufficient to support the judgment. . Each of the parties asked for a directed verdict and no other instructions, and the court directed a verdict in
WILK.] 1015 favor of the aPpellee. There being.some substantial testimony to .support it, as the majority holds, it will not be disturbed , here. St. L. S. W. 14. Co. v. Mulkey, 100 Ark: 71, 139 •S. 'W. 643. • The judgment is accordingly affirmed:
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.