Hughes v. Slifer

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

Appellant complains only of the refusal of judgment n. o. v. He contends that the record shows that plaintiff promised to do and in fact did nothing that he was not already bound to do and that therefore he should not recover. Taking the oral evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, -as we must, the jury, in reaching its verdict may have made the following inferences: Sillors and the plaintiff Hughes were partners in the conduct of a garage and repair shop in premises leased from defendant; their lease, dated February 7, 1922, prevented their use of the leasehold…