It is contended that, even though no evidence was offered by defendant to contradict the testimony of plaintiff as to interest payments, it was nevertheless a question of fact to be submitted to the jury. The fact in itself that evidence is uncontradicted does not warrant the court in directing a verdict.

The evidence may be undisputed, but it is a question for the jury if, as stated in Koontz v. Oregon R. & N. Co., 20 Or. 21 (23 Pac. 820), and cited with approval in Graham v. Coos Bay R. & N. Co., 71 Or. 393 (139 Pac. 337), men of reasonable minds might draw different conclusions from the facts proved. Jurors, however, are not permitted in the face of uneontradicted testimony, to enter the realm of speculation or to indulge in frivolous and captious objections thereto. Only reasonable inferences may be drawn from facts proved.

In the case at bar, the plaintiff explicitly testified as to the interest payments in question. There is no fact or circumstance indicating improbability. The transaction was done in the ordinary course of business. A juror, sworn to decide the case according to law and evidence, could reach only one legiti: mate conclusion in the instant case. If the cause *691 had been submitted to the jury on the evidence as disclosed by the record, and a verdict returned in favor of defendant, the court would have been obliged to set the same aside. Cases cited involving negligence are not in point. Each case must be read in the light of the facts before the court for decision. An examination of the record herein convinces us there was no issue to submit to the jury relative to defendant’s liability on the note, and the trial court was right in directing a verdict for the plaintiff on that phase of the case.

In our opinion the contention that the practice of directing verdicts is in conflict with the constitutional provision guaranteeing the right of trial by jury is untenable: 26 R. C. L. 1066. There must be an issue to submit to the jury before the defendant can complain.

We take it from the. brief of appellant that the other assignment of error is not seriously relied on, and it is therefore passed without consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Aeeirmed.