
    RIKER v. CURTIS.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    March 16, 1896.)
    Appeal—Review—Conflicting Evidence.
    A verdict on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by Fillmore Biker against James L. Curtis. From a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff, and an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before FITZSIMONS, CONLAN, and O’DWYER, JJ.
    E. A. S. Man, for appellant.
    Edgar A. Turrell, for respondent.
   O’DWYER, J.

The action is brought to recover the amount of two alleged loans to the defendant, and the claim is resisted upon the ground that the moneys in question were not received by the defendant as a loan, but in payment for the sale of a certain claim; and, further, that, if the transaction was a loan, then the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The evidence was conflicting, and the learned court, in a charge as favorable to the defendant as he could ask, submitted both questions to the jury for determination. There is evidence to sustain their verdict for the plaintiff, and, in our opinion, the evidence is preponderatingly in favor of the finding of the jury. '

There are no exceptions that require discussion, and the judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.  