
    Joseph A. Kurrus Livery & Undertaking Company, Appellant, v. Fannie Crossett, Appellee.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Evidence, § 476
      
      —when right to recover does not depend upon number of witnesses. The fact that a greater number of witnesses testify for a plaintiff does not necessarily determine his right to recover in the action.
    2. Witnesses, § 253*—when fury judges of weight and credibility of testimony. The jury, under proper instructions, are the proper judges of the weight and credence to be given to the testimony of the witnesses, as they see them on the stand and hear them testify.
    3. Assumpsit, action oe, § 89*—when evidence sufficient to support verdict for defendant. In an action- to recover a balance on a bill for undertaker’s services, and where the evidence was eonfiicting as to whether defendant promised to pay the bill, as plaintiff' alleged, evidence examined and held sufficient to support a verdict for defendant.
    
      Appeal from the City Court of East St. Louis; the Hon. Robert H. Flannigan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed April 17, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by the Joseph A. Kurrus Livery & Undertaking Company, plaintiff, against Fannie Crossett, defendant, in the City Court of East St. Louis, to recover a balance due on a bill for undertaking services. From a judgment against plaintiff for costs, plaintiff appeals.
    F. C. Smith, for appellant; C. W. Wiedemann, of counsel.
    Alexander Flannigen, for appellee; Edward C. Zullet, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topip and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Higbee

delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Appeal and error, § 1778 -—when verdict not reversed on ground of insufficiency of evidence. It is not ground of reversal that the jury believed the testimony of one side rather than another, although the number of witnesses who testified for the party against whom the jury found was greater than the number testifying for the other side.  