Gifford I. Holmes v. Lilygren Motor

1. The court did not err in denying defendant judgment notwithstanding the verdict, either on the ground that the proof conclusively established that defendant did not own the right of possession or control of the automobile so as to be able to consent to its operation by the driver who invited plaintiff to ride therein, nor on the ground that the driver departed from the authority given him, nor on the ground of plaintiffs contributory negligence.