Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/275

 was not interrogated by defendant on this point is convincing to our minds that there was no thought of raising any such point, and this confirms our belief that the written instrument under which Crafts was employed’ was not offered for the purpose of overthrowing the presumption of the continuance of the agency. We have carefully considered the points raised, and finding no error the judgment is affirmed. All concur.

(55 N. W. Rep. 583.)

Opinion filed April 14th, 1893.

Sufficiency of Evidence to Sustain Verdict.

The claim that a verdict is without support in the evidence cannot be maintained when the explicit and consistent testimony of one witness sustains it, even though a number of witnesses may as explicitly testify to the contrary.

Retaining Property of Another for Debt Due Does Not Constitute a Pledge.

The fact that one party, claiming under a legal right, however unfounded, declares to another arty that he will hold certain property of such other party until a debt owing by such party to him is secured, ayd that such other party remains silent, and makes no objection thereto, does not constitute a pledge of such property as security for such debt.

Appeal from District Court, Richland County, Lauder, J.

Action by Theophilus L. Taylor against John R. Jones, for conversion. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

McCumber & Bogart, for appellant.

The verdict was against the clear weight of the testimony and should be set aside. Mead v. Courve, 8 At. Rep. 374; Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434; Garrett v. Greenwell, 4 S. W. Rep. 441; Sandwich Manufacturing Co. v. Feary, 33 N. W. Rep. 485; Kaemmever v. Hauser, 29 Ml. App. 576; Jones v. MeWalley, 11 Rep. 544; M. P. Ry. Co. v. Swnmers, 14S. W. Rep. 779; Helfrich v.