Whether, in a suit to recover upon a contract by which, it was alleged, the plaintiff was to be paid upon a commission basis for services' rendered to the defendant, the plaintiff could recover under a contract by which he was to be paid upon a per diem basis for services rendered, yet where the evidence was conflicting as to whether the plaintiff had contracted to perform, the services for a compensation to be computed upon a commission basis or upon a per diem basis, and where the evidence authorized the inference that the plaintiff had performed the services under a contract by which he was to be paid a compensation computed upon a per diem basis, and he had been paid a certain sum of money for his services, and where the evidence did not as a matter of law, demand a finding that the plaintiff had not been paid on a per diem basis for all the services rendered, the verdict found for the defendant was authorized and was not without evidence to support it and contrary to law.

Judgment affirmed.