“Q. And you understood that he would take the grain at the price that he would sell on in the spring? A. Yes, sir; the price that I sold the rest of it. :
“Q. And as far as you were concerned that settled the negotiations ? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Well, then Mr. Larsen, when did Fred Friis—Fred Friis never settled with you, did he? A. No, sir.
“Q. Has he paid you yet for that grain? A. No, sir.
“Q. And have you asked him to pay for it? A. Yes; a good many times.
“Q. And what was the next time that you had any conversation with Mr. Friis about this money that he owed you? A. Well it was in January some time; the last part of January or the first part of February. I can’t just remember the date.
“Q. That was about three or four months after you sold him the grain? A. Yes; four months, I guess.
“Q. And what happened that time? A. Well I drove by there, and he come out and stopped me and told me that he didn’t want that wheat.
“Q. And he told you that he wouldn’t pay you for it, I presume? A. Well, he said that he didn’t want it; that he had changed his mind, and that he wanted to put in Marquis wheat instead of Macaroni.
“Q. And what did you say? A. I say, ‘All right; I can take it out.’ ”
The plaintiff further testified that at the time this latter conversation was had there was so much snow and manure around the granary that he could not remove his grain. That some six weeks or more later he went up there and found that the grain had all been taken out of the granary. The defendant denied that he had ever purchased or agreed to purchase the wheat from the plaintiff. He also denied that he had ever authorized Hoffein to do so. He admitted, however, that Hoffein had notified him that the wheat had been placed in the granary. He also admitted that he had a conversation with the plaintiff a short time there- after, regarding this grain, but he denies that the conversation was as testified to by the plaintiff. Defendant testified that he had three different tenants haul grain from the granary to be used for seed on farms belonging to the defendant. He was not present at the time any of the grain was taken. That all he knew as to the quantity of grain removed by them was based upon the information given him by those who hauled the grain out. That according to such information the grain removed
