
    WARD v. VILLAGE OF BIRMINGHAM.
    New Trial — Great Weight oe Evidence.
    Where issue was close but simple, and verdict was evidently rendered upon comprehension of facts, motion for new trial, on ground that verdict was against great weight of evidence, was properly denied, although evidence was quite contradictory.
    Appeal from Oakland; Gillespie (Glenn 0.), J.
    Submitted January 4, 1933.
    (Docket No. 5, Calendar No. 36,886.)
    Decided April 4, 1933.
    Assumpsit by William F. Ward, doing business as W. F. Ward Company, against Village of Birmingham, a municipal corporation, to recover balance due under a well-drilling contract. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      A. Floyd Blakeslee, for plaintiff.
    
      Glare H. Ogden (Pelton & McGee, of counsel), for' defendant.
   Clark, J.

Plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant village to construct for it a well of certain dimension and capacity. He sued to recover on the theory that he had performed the contract. The defense is that he did not perform, chiefly in respect of filing bond and of capacity of well. The issue was submitted to a jury, who found for plaintiff. From judgment on verdict, defendant has appealed, contending that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, and that, therefore, the trial judge erred in denying a motion for new trial.

The issue is close but simple, and the evidence quite contradictory. We have no doubt the verdict was rendered upon comprehension of the facts. Nothing will be gained by stating them further. We are in accord with the trial judge.

Affirmed.

McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.  