Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/698

 T. F. Murtha and A. P. Reed, for appellant.

Simpson & Mackoff, for respondents.

If there is any evidence whatever from which the jury could decide the fact, such finding by the jury will not be disturbed by any appellate court. IF. A. Patrick Co. v. Austin (N. D.) 127 N. W. 109; Lowry v. Piper (N. D.) 127 N. W. 1046; Nilson v. Horton (N. D.) 123 N. W. 397; Acton v. Fargo & M. St. Ry. Co. (N. D.) 129 N. W. 225; Casey v. First Nat'l Bank (N. D.) 126 N. W. torr; Mont. Eastern Ry. Co. v. lebech, 32 N. D.162; Northern Trust Co. v. Bruegger, 35 N. D. 150. Written contract cannot be changed by oral testimony. Custom must be pleaded. 17 C. J. 516, § 80; Stevens v. Casualty Co. 12 N. D. 463; Sykes v. Bank, 49 N. W. 1058 (S. D.); Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Loomis, 31 N. D.27; First Nat'l Bank v. Aberdeen (S. D.) 137 N. W. 597.

The rule is that the plaintiff may recover damages which manifests itself up to the time of the verdict, where the wrong consists in the breach of a contract. Mason v. Alabama Iron Co. 73 Ala. 270; Southern Bell Tel. Co. v. Earle, 118 Ga. 506, 45 S. E. 319; Russell v. Excelsior Store Co. 120 Ill. A. 23; Kochenrath v. Christman, 203 S. W. 738 (Ky.) Standard Oil Co. v. Denton, 70 S. W. 282 (Ky.); Allen v. Encroth, 111 Minn. 395, 127 N. W. 426.

, J. This is an action for breach of a contract. The defendant has appealed from a judgment entered upon a verdict of $2,078 in plaintiff's favor. In the evidence it appears that the plaintiffs made a contract with the defendant to deliver May 18 to May 20, I920, a minimum carload of green, salted hides, at 2014 cents for No. 1’s and 1914 cents for No. 2’s, freight paid to Chicago; the hides to be in merchantable condition, banked overnight, and 2 per cent. tare deducted. Pursuant to this contract, the defendant sent its representative to Dickinson, N. D., the plaintiffs’ place of business, on May 18, 1920, to inspect and receive the hides. On that date the parties proceeded to bank the hides, preparatory to shipment. In the course of this operation a dispute arose between the plaintiffs and the representative concerning an allowance or deduction upon hides affected with manure other than the 2 per cent. tare mentioned in the contract. The representative, upon objections made by the plaintiffs to this manurance dockage, final-