Dimond

This action was brought by plaintiff to recover the sum of $2,995 for money alleged to have been laid out and expended by him on behalf of defendant, and for damages. Judgment went for plaintiff in the amount prayed for, and this appeal is from the judgment and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

The cause of action was based upon a contract of agency claimed to have been entered into between plaintiff and defendant. Several grounds are relied upon for a reversal, but as we view the evidence, we are of the opinion that it fails to show that any contract whatever existed between plaintiff and defendant, and our consideration of the case may be confined to this question alone.

The evidence may be summarized as follows: Defendant is a foreign corporation engaged in the manufacture of gas-engines in the state of Pennsylvania. On the twenty-first day of March, 1912, it entered into a written contract with one Julius Beeman for the sale of its engines in the states of Arizona and California. In the latter state Kern County and the oil fields were excepted from the operation of the contract for the reason that defendant in these locations maintained its own sales…