(after stating the facts). Appellants insist that the verdict is not supported by the testimony, while appellees contend that the verdict is demonstrably inaccurate, and that they are entitled to a judgment, notwithstanding the verdict, for the full amount of their claim.
It may be said that the testimony is in conflict, and certainly as to whether there was a new oral contract made for the last work and a final settlement for the first work done under the written contract, and same is sufficient to have supported a verdict for either party, the plaintiffs or defendants, under their contentions.
It is true that the verdict is not consistent, but that is no ground for reversal thereof in this court, it being supported by sufficient testimony. The appellants contend that there was only one contract, and that the final estimate of all work done, both at the first stations and after the removal north to the other stations, under the contract amounted to a certain designated sum, and that the payments made were more than the amount thereof —an overpayment, in fact, of a substantial amount. On the other hand, according to appellees’ contention, they were only paid in full for the amount of work first done, and they insist appellants were due them more than a $1,000 for the work done under the oral contract after the removal from the first stations and the completion of that contract and final payment made, and that the jury, having found in their favor, entitles them to a judgment, notwithstanding the verdict, for the whole amount.
There could be no judgment notwithstanding the verdict upon this state of the case within the meaning of the statute {% 6273, Cl & M. Digest), and the rules of this court thereon. Fulbright v. Phipps, 176 Ark. 356, 3 S. W. (2d) 49 ; Moore v. Rogers Wholesale Gro. Co., 177 Ark. *763993, 8 S. W. (2d) 457 ; Oil Field's Corp. v. Cubage, 180 Ark. 1018, 24 S. W. (2d) 328.
The judgment is affirmed.