
    Grogan, Respondent, vs. Wisconsin Sugar Company, Appellant.
    
      February 6
    
    March 17, 1914.
    
    
      . Appeal: Affirmance: Disagreement in appellate court.
    
    Where a majority of the members of this court are not in accord as to any ground for reversal, a judgment will he affirmed.
    Appeal from a judgment of the county court of Waukesha ■county: David W. Agnew, Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Action to recover on two written contracts, whereby plaintiff became obligated to plant a stipulated number of acres to sugar beets, cultivate and harvest the same in good husband-like manner, and deliver the matured crop to the defendant in .good condition. The latter, .in consideration of performance ■on plaintiff’s part, agreed to pay him at a stipulated rate for beets delivered. Plaintiff claimed that, at the time of making the written contracts, defendant verbally agreed to furnish him experienced and sufficient help to seasonably do that part of the work required in producing the beet crop, called hand work, such as thinning, hoeing, pulling, topping, bunching, piling, and covering the beets, and made it as an inducement for plaintiff to crop his land to beets as agreed in writing, and that, though plaintiff fully performed all obligations incurred by him, defendant breached its verbal promise to his damage in the sum of $350. Defendant answered putting the allegations as to the verbal agreement, the breach •thereof, and damages in consequence thereof in issue and pleaded a counterclaim of $85.53. The counterclaim was ■duly replied to.
    There was evidence of the making of the verbal contract .as alleged, a breach thereof, and damages thereby caused to plaintiff around $300. There was also evidence, showing or tending to show, that defendant, by conduct from the beginning to the end of the period for performance between the parties, recognized tbe existence of its promise to fnrnisb tbe labor to do tbe so-called band work. Tbe counterclaim was admitted on tbe trial to tbe extent of $33.75. Tbe jury in due form found in plaintiff’s favor on all issues and assessed bis damages at $264, after deducting tbe $33.75 admitted to be due defendant on its counterclaim. Judgment was rendered accordingly.
    Eor tbe appellant there was a brief by Frame &■ Blackstone, and oral argument by A. L. Blaekstone.
    
    
      For tbe respondent there was a brief by Merton, Newbury <& J acobson, and oral argument by M. A. J acobson.
    
   Maeshall, J.

Tbe rule as to disposition of a cause in case of there not being a majority of tbe members of tbe court in accord as to any ground for reversal requires tbe judgment in this case to be affirmed and renders filing of an opinion unnecessary, if not inadvisable.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.  