Epitomized Opinion

This -was an action for damage to an automobilj caused by a collision. Th,e plaintiff’s car was strucil by another car. The plaintiff ^stifled that thj collision was due to the negligence of the driver oj the-other car. ...This was-¡contradicted by both thj *817driver of the other car and a passenger in it. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, whereupon the plaintiff prosecuted error. In sustaining the judgment of the lower court, the Court of Appeals held:

1. That it could not be said that the verdict was manifestly against the weight of the evidence, as reasonable minds might differ on the issues involved.