The trial court, in this suit for refund of income taxes, directed a verdict for the United States when, it concluded that all the evidence demanded a negative answer to the question: “Was there an oral agreement between Mr. Gaskins and Mr. Barrantine which provided. * * * (1) That Mr. Barrantine had both the right and the obligation to cut an amount of timber agreed upon between the par *730 ties?” The parties agreed in effect, by a pretrial stipulation, that the jury must find that the oral agreement included this provision in order for the appellants-taxpayers to recover.

We agree with the trial court that the evidence demanded a negative answer to this interrogatory. Thus the trial court did not err in directing a verdict for the United States.

The judgment is affirmed.