Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/276

 Hogden City Ry. Co., 26 Pac. Rep. 295; Atchison & C. Ry. Co. v. Wagner, 7 Pac. Rep. 204; Cummings v. Winters, 28 N. W. Rep. 303. The silence of Taylor was an assent to the proposition made by Jones. Bishop Cont. § § 284-290 and 229; 1 Parsons Cont. 476; Abbot v. Herman, 7 Me. 118; Preston v. Am. Linen Co., 119 Mass. 400; Leathers Mfg’s Nat. Bank v. Morgen, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 657; Steel v. Refining Co., 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 389.

W. E. Purcell and L. B. Everdell for respondent.

A court will not set aside a verdict as being against evidence, because on examination they might have come to a different conclusion from that arrived at by the jury. Wendall v. Stafford, 12 N.H. 171, Mays v. Callwin, 6 Leigh 230. A mere preponderance of evidence against a verdict is no ground for granting a new trial. 1 Graham & Watt on New Trials, 380; Johnson v. R. R. Co., 11 Minn, 204; De Rochebrune v. Southeimer, 12 Minn. 78; State v. Herrick, 12 Minn. 132; Canefield v. Bogie, 2 Dak., 465; Moline Plow Co. v. Gilbert (Dak.) 16 N. W. Rep. 500; King v. Meyers, 35 Cal. 646; Todd v. Brannan, 30 Ia. 439; Barret v. U. S. 9 Wall, 38; Alveron v. U. S. 8 Wall. 337.

, C. J. Taylor, the plaintiff below and respondent herein, sued John R. Jones, the defendant and appellant, in conversion for the value of a team, harness, and buggy. There was a verdict for plaintiff, a motion for a new trial denied, and judgment on the verdict. It is uncontroverted that respondent was the owner of the property prior to bringing this action, and that it was in appellant's possession; that respondent demanded the same, and appellant refused to deliver it. The answer alleged, in substance, that on the 2nd day of June, 1891, respondent delivered the property to appellant, as a pledge to secure an indebtedness that respondent owed to appellant, and that appellant held the property under and in accordance with the terms of the pledge, and that the debt had not been paid. That the debt existed and was unpaid seems to be conceded. The case was made to turn entirely upon, the truth or falsity of the allegation