BROADDUS, Judge.
This is an action for damages. Defendant was the owner of a house located in Chillicothe, Missouri. On June 23, 1946, she rented the upstairs portion of said house to plaintiff for the sum of $50.00 per month. Plaintiff occupied the premises until June 8, 1947. The basis of plaintiff's claim is that defendant made false representations to him as to the amount of rent she had been receiving from a prior tenant. Plaintiff testified that the reason he felt that he was being overcharged by defendant was "because I found a little rent receipt upstairs made out to a former tenant and signed by Mrs. Crookshanks (defendant) and stating in there that the tenant was paying $30.00 a month rent." Defendant's evidence was that she had, in fact, rented the premises to this former tenant for the sum of $50.00 per month, "$30.00 in cash, and the balance in work;" that the reason she gave the former tenant credit for doing the work around the house, such as firing the furnace, was that she was sick and unable to do it alone.
At the conclusion of the evidence plaintiff filed a motion for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied. The jury returned a verdict for defendant and plaintiff has perfected his appeal to this court. Plaintiff filed no motion for a new trial. He did, however, within ten days after rendition of the verdict move to have the verdict set aside and to have judgment entered in accordance with his motion for a directed verdict. This course is authorized under Section 113 of our New Code, Laws of Mo. 1943, page 387, Mo.R.S.A. § 847.113.
Rule 3.23 of our Supreme Court provides that: "Allegations of error, in order to be preserved for appellate review, must be presented to the trial court in a motion for a new trial; except * * * questions authorized by Section 113 (New Code) to be presented in a motion for judgment." Thus, there is preserved for our review the question of whether the trial court erred in not sustaining plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict made at the close of all of the evidence. This is the sole point relied upon by plaintiff in his brief, but he cites no authorities in support of it.
The case presented merely a question of fact. Of course, where testimony is presented on both sides tending in any degree to establish the respective theories of plaintiff and defendant, the trial court has no right to take the case from the jury. It was proper for the trial court to over-rule plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict.
As stated, plaintiff filed no motion for a new trial. However, under Rule 3.27 of the Supreme Court plain errors affecting substantial rights may be considered on appeal, in the discretion of the court, though not raised in the trial court or preserved for review, when the court deems that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom. In view of this, we have carefully examined the entire transcript. We find that no error was made by the trial court in any of its rulings on the admissibility of testimony or in the giving or refusing of instructions. Thus, we have no right to interfere. The case should be affirmed. It is so ordered. All concur.