Steil

(after stating the facts as above). As the record fails to show that defendants below, plaintiffs in error here, moved for an instructed verdict on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence, the general assignment that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict presents no question for review. Bank of Italy v. Romeo (C. C. A.) 287 F. 5 . In Penn Casualty Co. v. Whiteway, 210 F. 782 , 127 C. C. A. 332 , we said: “When an action at law is tried before a jury, their verdict is not subject to review, unless there is absence of substantial evidence to sustain it, and even then it is not reviewable, unless a request has been made for a peremptory instruction, and an exception taken to the ruling of the court.” Laurie v. United States (C. C. A.) 278 F. 934 ; Bank of Waterproof v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. (C. C. A.) 299 F. 478 .

Several other assignments are somewhat less indefinite. They are in substance'that the evidence failed to show that plaintiffs did not warrant the quality of the goods in controversy, and did not agree that tho defendants might return the goods in controversy at any time they desired to do so, and did not breach the warranty made in connection with…