
    Dohovan et al., appellants, v. Woodruff.
    
      Contract of sale—conflicting evidence.
    
    Plaintiffs sought to recover for a quantity of stone alleged to have been sold to the defendant and delivered at his request to K. On the trial the evidence was contradictory as to whether or not the sale was made to defendant on his sole credit; but the circuit judge refused to allow the case to go to the jury and nonsuited the plaintiff. On appeal, held, that the case should have been submitted to the jury.
    Appeal from a judgment at the circuit dismissing the complaint. John E. Van Etten, for appellants.
    
      Paddock & Nott and M. Schoonmaker, for respondent.
   Bockes, J.

The opinion contains no point of general importance not stated in the head-note.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.  