1. Appeal and error @=>209(1) — Sufficiency of evidence not renewable, without request for finding or motion raising question of sufficiency.

The sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s findings is not open to review in the Circuit Court of Appeals, where there was no request for a contrary finding, and no motion or request presenting to the trial court the question of law whether there was substantial evidence to sustain the. findings.

2. Appeal and error @==>882(9) — Defendant not entitled to reversal for erroneous testimony, brought out by him on cross-examination.

A judgment for plaintiff will not be reversed for the admission of erroneous testimony, brought out by defendant on cross-examination of plaintiff’s witnesses.

3. Appeal and error @=*1213 — On second trial, objections to incompetent evidence, the ground of the reversal of first judgment may be waived.

Though a judgment was reversed because of the admission of evidence of particular sales on the question of market value, counsel could, on a retrial oil the case, waive objections to the competency of such evidence.

4. Appeal and error @=>995 — Weight of expert evidence a matter for the trial court.

The weignt to be attached to the opinions of experts as to market value was a matter for the trial court.

5. Sales @=*181(11) — Evidence held to support finding of ability and willingness of seller to comply with contract.

In an action for "breach of a contract to purchase hops, evidence hold to support a finding that plaintiff, the seller, was able, ready, and willing to deliver the quantity of hops contracted for.

6. Appeal and error @=’1011 (1) — Conflicts and contradictions in the evidence are for the trial court. i

Conflicts or contradictions in the evidence are subjects for consideration by the trial court, and its findings will not be set aside because thereof.

7. Appeal and error @=’1050(1) — Question not prejudicial, when followed by another not containing the objectionable limitation.

In an action for breach of a contract to purchase hops, a question asked a witness as to what would be a reasonable time to dispose of 2,000 bales of hops in Milwaukee at the market price was not prejudicial, because limited to Milwaukee, where the court asked the witness what his answer would be if the question applied to all Eastern markets, instead of Milwaukee alone, and he answered that the market was lifeless and declining, and it would not be easy to sell in any Eastern market.