Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/531

 v. Chesrown 33 Minn. 32, 21 N.W. 846. In the latter case in the syllabus it is stated “If, upon such reasonable trial it does not work satisfactorily, it is not necessary for him to return it, (in the absence of an express agreement to that effect), but it is sufficient if within a reasonable time he notify the person furnishing it in substance that it does not work satisfactorily, and that he declines to accept it.”

It is wholly immaterial whether plaintiff was making much or little profit in the transaction. The important question is: what was the contract? And in the circumstances of this case that.was the question for the jury, under proper instructions by the court, which in this case the court wholly failed to give.

PETER LARSEN, Respondent, v. FRED W. FRIIS, Appellant.

New trial—all grounds must be presented on motion, or they are waived.

1. Where there is a motion for a new trial, rulings of the trial court which constitute proper grounds for a new trial under the statute must be presented upon such motion; otherwise they will be deemed waived.

Sales—evidence sustaining verdict for seller.

2. Evidence examined and held that the trial court did not err in re- fusing to grant a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence.

Appeal from the County Court of Ward County, Murray, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment and from an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.

Affirmed.

M. R. Keith and John E. Greene, for appellant.

H. H. Cooper and Thomas B. Murphy, for respondent.