First Nat’l Bank, 924 P.2d 83, 1996 Wyo. LEXIS

133 (Wyo. 1996). Test for granting a judgment n.o.v. — is virtually the same as that employed in deter- mining whether a motion for directed verdict should be granted or denied. The logic behind similar standards of review is that it allows the district court another opportunity to determine the legal question of sufficiency of the evidence raised by the motion after the jury has reached a verdict and it promotes judicial economy. Cody v. Atkins, 658 P.2d 59, 1983 Wyo. LEXIS 278 (Wyo. 1983). In determining whether a motion for judg- ment notwithstanding the verdict is proper, the test to be applied is whether the evidence is such that without weighing the credibility of the witnesses, or otherwise considering the weight of the evidence, there can be but one could have conclusion reasonable persons reached. Erickson v. Magill, 713 P.2d 1182, 1986 Wyo. LEXIS 476 (Wyo. 1986). Evidence considered in light advanta- geous to verdict holder. — In determining whether to render a judgment notwithstanding the verdict the trial court is not justified in trespassing upon the province of the jury to be the judge of questions of fact in a case, and the party favored by the verdict is entitled to have the testimony read in the light most advanta- geous to him, being given the benefit of every inference of fact fairly deducible therefrom. Cimoli v. Greyhound Corp., 372 P.2d 170, 1962 Wyo. LEXIS 87 (Wyo. 1962). And absence of substantial evidence sole ground for judgment notwithstand- ing verdict. — The court has power to enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict only for one reason — the absence of any substantial evidence to support the verdict. Cimoli v. Grey- hound Corp., 372 P.2d 170, 1962 Wyo. LEXIS 87 (Wyo. 1962). If substantial evidence of fraud was pre- sented to the jury, and if the jury had reason to believe such fraud caused the defendant to part with the check, then the jury’s verdict ought to be reinstated. If there was no substantial evi- dence of fraud by the bank which caused the drawee to part with his check, then the judg- ment notwithstanding, the verdict ought to be affirmed. Simpson v. Western Nat’l Bank, 497 P.2d 878, 1972 Wyo. LEXIS 255 (Wyo. 1972). Motion partially granted and partially denied. — See Mayflower Restaurant Co. v. Griego, 741 P.2d 1106, 1987 Wyo. LEXIS 493 (Wyo. 1987). Motion is not condition precedent to appeal. — A motion for judgment notwith- standing the verdict is not a condition prec- edent to an appeal from a final judgment. Belle Fourche Pipeline Co. v. Elmore Livestock Co., 669 P.2d 505, 1983 Wyo. LEXIS 357 (Wyo. 1983). Joining motions for judgment notwith- standing verdict and new trial does not extend time for appeal. — The fact that the motion for judgment notwithstanding the ver- dict was joined with a motion for new trial could not in the proper administration of justice be allowed to effect an extension of time for appeal. This was not the Supreme Court’s in- tention at the time the rules were adopted, and any such interpretation of the rules would permit an appellant by the addition of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict to effect a delay. Brasel & Sims Constr. Co. v. Neuman Transit Co., 378 P.2d 501, 1963 Wyo. LEXIS 71 (Wyo. 1963). Section 1-11-211, insofar as it conflicts with subdivision (b) of this rule, gives way to the rule. — In re Estate of Draper, 374 P.2d 425, 1962 Wyo. LEXIS 103 (Wyo. 1962).