dict is against the truth and the undoubted weight of evidence, and could only have been reached through passion or prejudice, or a failure to exercise a sound and unbiased judgment on the part of the jury, such court should unhesitatingly reverse the ruling of the trial court refusing to vacate such verdict. The following are some of the cases that have covered this ground: Reynolds v. Lambert, 69 Ill 495; Manufacturing Co. v. Reeves, 68 Ill. 403; Blake v. McMullen, 91 IIL 32; Branson v. Caruthers, 49 Cal. 374; Heifrich v. Railroad Co. (Utah), 26 Pac. Rep. 295; Lester v. Sallack, 31 Iowa 477; McKay v. Thornington, 15 Iowa 25; Carlin vy. Railroad Co. 37 Iowa 316; Reid v. Colby, 26 Neb. 469, 42 N. W. Rep. 485.
In this case the correspondence shows that plaintiff desired to be employed by defendant for a year, but defendant expressly refused to contract for any specified length of time, but did state that, if plaintiff could handle at the elevator, of which he was to have charge, a certain amount of wheat, the defendant could afford to pay him $600 for so doing. Plaintiff had charge of the elevator from August 15, 1889, until March 15 or 17, 1890. At that time, according to plaintiff’s testimony, there was but little wheat left tributary to that station—about one car-load scattered around among the farmers. Plaintiff had handled about two-fifths of the specified amount, for the handling of which defendant had said it could afford to pay him $600. About the close of each month plaintiff received a check from the defendant's Minneapolis office for the amount of hie month’s wages. About March 17, 1890, a general agent of defendant visited plaintiff for the purpose of closing the elevator. The agent testifies that he told plaintiff that he had come to close the house; that he ordered all the grain shipped out at once, which was done; that he took away all the books and all of the money, except $50, which plaintiff retained as salary for the past month, and left the key with plaintiff. Plaintiff in his testimony admits that the agent said he came to close the house; admits that the grain was shipped out and the books and money taken away; but he says that the agent did not close the house, because he (plaintiff) told the agent he was hired for a year—a statement which he ought to have known
