
    RANSOM v. WHEELWRIGHT et al.
    (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 Jonathan H. Ransom against John W. Wheelwright and another for commissions. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
    Argued before FITZSIMONS, CONLAN, and O’DWYER, JJ.
    Wilson & Wallace, for appellants.
    Abram Kling, for respondent.
   FITZSIMONS, J.

The jury evidently believed that the contract which expired April 28, 1891, was rénewed in accordance with the terms expressed in defendants’ letter to plaintiff, dated April 11, 1891, except that it expired only after 60 days’ notice to terminate the same had been given by either plaintiff or defendants. They also believed that he was the person who procured Drabble Bros, to purchase goods from the defendants to the extent of $60,000, which entitled him to the verdict rendered. There is ample testimony to sustain these beliefs of the jury, and, besides, we think the record shows that the plaintiff was equitably entitled to the commission on the sales made by defendants to said firm of Drabble Bros., because they never were customers of defendants’ firm until after their orders were solicited by the plaintiff.

We find no error in the printed record, and the judgment is affirmed, with costs. All concur.  