Huber v. Zeiszler, 37 N.D. 556, 164 N.W. 131; Andrieux v. Kaeding, 47 N.D. 17, 181 N.W. 59; Farmers' Exch. State Bank v. Iverson, 51 N.D. 909, 201 N.W. 509. If the defendant desires more explicit instructions than are given by the court, they should be presented to the court in writing with request that they be given.

The question of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict cannot be raised for the first time on appeal in the absence of a motion for a directed verdict or a motion for a new trial. Veum v. Stefferud, 50 N.D. 371, 196 N.W. 104; Farmers Bank v. Iverson, 51 N.D. 909, 201 N.W. 509; McLain v. Nurenberg, 16 N.D. 144, 112 N.W. 1114; Morris v. Soo R. Co. 32 N.D. 366, 155 N.W. 861; Buchanan v. Occident Elevator Co. 33 N.D. 346, 157 N.W. 122; Freerks v. Nurnberg, 33 N.D. 587, 157 N.W. 119. NUESSLE, J.

A party who has not requested further instructions is not in a position to complain of a failure to charge on a particular point unless the charge is so devoid of the correct principle of law applicable to the issues that it amounts to misdirection. Andrieux v. Kaeding, 47 N.D. 17, 181 N.W. 59; Farmers Exch. Bank v. Iverson, 51 N.D. 909, 201 N.W. 509; McGregor v. Great N.R. Co. 31 N.D. 471, 154 N.W. 261; Swords v. McConnell, 31 N.D. 494, 154 N.W. 258. The trial court is not required to present every issue raised by the testimony unless a request directing the attention of the court thereto is made, provided the principal contentions under the pleadings are intelligently defined and submitted. North Star Lumber Co. v. Rosenquist, 29 N.D. 566, 155 N.W. 289.

"There is a difference between nondirection and misdirection, and, unless the former amounts to the latter it is not reversible error. If a party desires more complete and specific instructions on any special point it is his duty to request such instruction. Huber v. Zeiszler, 37 N.D. 556, 164 N.W. 131; Andrieux v. Kaeding, 47 N.D. 17, 28, 181 N.W. 59; Farmers' Exchange State Bank [of Sanger, N.D.] v. Iverson, 51 N.D. 909, 201 N.W. 509. `It is not compulsory upon a trial court to present every issue that may be raised by the testimony, without a request directing the attention of the court thereto, so long as the main issues, the principal contentions of the pleadings, are intelligibly defined and submitted.' North Star Lumber Co. v. Rosenquist, 29 N.D. [566] 568, 574, 151 N.W. 289, 291."

In such case failure to instruct can be urged as error only if in light of the evidence the nondirection constitutes misdirection." State v. Van Horne, 71 N.D. 455, 2 N.W.2d 1; Huber v. Zeiszler, 37 N.D. 556, 164 N.W. 131; Harmon v. Haas, 61 N.D. 772, 241 NW 70; Farmers Exch. v. Iverson, 51 N.D. 909, 201 N.W. 509; Reichert v. N. P. Ry. Co., 39 N.D. 114, 121, 167 N.W. 127, 128; Blackstead v. Kent, 63 N.D. 246, 247 N.W. 607; Andrieux v. Kaeding, 47 N.D. 17, 28, 181 N.W. 59, 63; Grant v. Jacobs, 76 N.D. 1, 32 N.W.2d 881; Froh v. Hein, 76 N.D. 701, 39 N.W.2d 11. See also Anno 77 ALR at p 1459 et seq.; Anno 154 ALR at p 805 et seq. The laws of this state provide that the party desiring to move for a new trial shall serve with the notice of such motion a statement of the errors of law of which he complains.

Where instructions are desired in civil actions the parties should make a request therefor. Blackstead v. Kent, 63 N.D. 246, 247 N.W. 607; Harmon v. Haas, 61 N.D. 772, 241 N.W. 70; Huber v. Zeiszler, 37 N.D. 556, 164 N.W. 131; Andrieux v. Kaeding, 47 N.D. 17, 181 N.W. 59; Farmers Exchange Bank v. Iverson, 51 N.D. 909, 201 NW 509. BURKE, J.

The question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict cannot be raised on appeal in the absence of a motion for a directed verdict or a motion for a new trial. Farmers Exch. State Bank v. Iverson, 51 N.D. 909, 201 N.W. 509. PER CURIAM.

In the case of Harmon v. Haas, 61 N.D. 772, 241 N.W. 70, at page 72, 80 A.L.R. 1131, this court said: "It is not compulsory upon a trial court to present every issue that may be raised by the testimony, without a request directing the attention of the court thereto so long as the main issues under the pleadings are defined and submitted. If a party desires more complete and specific instructions on any special point, it is his duty to request such instruction." Huber v. Zeiszler, 37 N.D. 556, 164 N.W. 131; Andrieux v. Kaeding, 47 N.D. 17, 181 N.W. 59; Farmers Exch. Bank v. Iverson, 51 N.D. 909, 201 N.W. 509. Appellant also contends that it was error to permit defendant's counsel, in his argument to the jury, to comment on the failure of the plaintiff to call doctors to testify as witnesses in his behalf.

In an action upon a promissory note, the indorser in blank cannot establish by parol that the indorsement is made upon the understanding that it should be without recourse to him. Farm Exch. Bank v. Iverson, 201 N.W. 509. When a written contract is made and delivered and nothing remains to complete its execution, parol evidence is inadmissible to prove an understanding that it was not intended to be operative according to its terms. 10 R.C.L. 1041.