A motion for such judgment is properly denied, after verdict upon an issue distinctly raised by the answer and submitted to the jury without objection; Lewis v. Foard, 112 N. C. 402, 17 S. E. 9 ;, or where the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict ; Fruchey v. Eagleson, 15 Ind. App. 88, 43 N. E. 146 ; or where, after reserving a point on certain facts, other evidence is submitted to the jury, and it is uncertain on which evidence the jury found ; Keifer v. Eldred Tp., 110 Pa. 1, 20 Atl. 592.
It is not sufficient that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence; Man ning v. Orleans, 42 Neb. 712, 60 N. W. 953; and the judgment can he entered only when the moving party is entitled to it upon the pleadings of the party who had the verdict ; Gibbon v. Loan Ass'n, 43 Neb. 132, 61 N. W. 126.
In Ohio, judgment against a general ver dict cannot be entered unless all the facts necessary to support such judgment are ex pressly found ; Fairbank & Co. v. R. Co., 66 Fed. 471. In Indiana, a judgment non ob stante will not be granted unless there is an irreconcilable conflict between the general verdict and the answer to the interrogato ries; British-American Assur. v. Wilson,
132 Ind. 278, 31 N. E. 938. When the special finding of facts is inconsistent with the eral verdict, the former controls the latter, and the court may give judgment according ly ; School Dist. v. Lund, 51 Kan. 731, 33 Pac. 595. In Oregon, there is a statutory provi sion authorizing judgment for the other par ty where the verdict does not correspond with pleadings, and it is held that that right is not impaired by failing to move for judg ment before verdict; Benicia Agr. Works v. Creighton, 21 Or. 495, 28 Pac. 775, 30 Pac. 676. In Minnesota, such judgment can be given only to a party who, after the testi mony, moved to direct a verdict in his fa vor; Hemstad v. Hall, 64 Minn. 136, 66 N. W. 366, In Kansas, by statute, such a judg ment may be entered by the court in favor of the party against whom an adverse ver dict has been rendered; Ft. Scott v. Broker age Co., 117 Fed. 51, 54 C. C. A. 437.
In many states there are statutes on the subject which must be considered in connec tion with the decisions.