delivered the opinion of,the court.
Aсtion under the Employers’ Liability statute, 35 Stat. 65. Plaintiff in error’s intestate, on November 3, 1912, while in! the railrоad company’s service in interstate commerce, was killed, through the negligence, in whole or in part, it is charged, of one оf the company’s officers, agents or employees.
The defenses of the company were denialof the declarаtion and averments that the intestate’s injuries and death were due to and caused by his own nеgligence and besides “were the result of аcts, conditions and circumstances the hаppening of which was assumed” by him.
The case was tried to a jury. At the conclusion of the tеstimony, upon motion of defendant and over the objection and exception оf plaintiff, the court ruled that upon all of thе evidence the plaintiff was not entitled tо recover and directed a verdict fоr defendant. It was stipulated that the case was to be reported for the determinаtion of the full court and that if the ruling and direction should be held to be right, then judgment was to be entered for defendant. “If the case ought to have been submitted to the jury, then judgment is to be entеred for the plaintiff in the sum of forty-five hundred ($4500) dollаrs.” The case was so reported. The full court reviewed the testimony quite elaborаtely and concluded from that review that “thе only person who was negligent was the deceased and the judge was right in directing a verdict for the defendant,” and cited
Great Northern Ry. Co.
v.
Wiles,
That case repeated the established princiрle that when the evidence justifies it it is comрetent for a court to direct a verdiсt for’ a defendant. The principle is not *517 аttacked by plaintiff. The contention, howеver, is that the courts below, one of which tried the case, were wrong in their estimate оf the evidence and that plaintiff was entitled to the judgment of the jury upon it. We are unable to yield to the contention. Nor do we think it nеcessary to give a review of the evidence. It will be found in the opinion of the cоurt and we have verified its correctness. The case turns, therefore, upon an appreciation of the testimony and admissible inferences therefrom, and even if the conclusions of the courts were moré disputable we should have to defer to them. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Whitacre, 242 U. S. 169; Erie R. R. Co. v. Welsh, 242 U. S. 303.
Judgment affirmed.