Reynolds

The fact of the court having made the order granting a new trial dependent on the plaintiffs’ failing to do certain things, is, in our judgment, an immaterial circumstance. It is not claimed that the plaintiffs did that which, according to the terms of the order, would have defeated it. If we can discover any ground on which the court would be justified in granting a new trial, the order must be affirmed. There was evidence which tended to prove that the goods, which this action was brought to recover the possession of, wefe shipped at Cincinnati by the defendants Scott & Co., consigned to themselves at Los Angeles, and that the bill of lading was delivered by them to the defendants S. Kuhn & Sons, who forwarded it, with a draft on the plaintiffs for what was claimed to be the price of the goods, to a bank at Los Angeles, with directions to deliver the bill of lading to the plaintiffs on payment of the draft; that the draft was presented to plaintiffs for payment, and payment was refused, whereupon the bill of lading and draft were returned to defendants S. Kuhn & Sons. The goods drrived at Los Angeles, and after being kept the usual length of time by the railroad company, were…