20 Neb. 509 | Neb. | 1886
This was an action on a promissoi’y note by an indorsee. The answer alleges that the note was delivered conditionallyu to the payee, the condition being that a certain piano purchased of the payee by plaintiff in error should be a new one of first-class quality, and should upon trial prove satisfactory to plaintiff in error, or, in the event of its failure, it should be returned and • the notes surrendered. It is further alleged that the instrument was not what it was represented to be, that notice of the fact was given to Hohmann, the payee of the note, and that he agreed to take it away and surrender the notes, but that afterwards he endorsed them (without recourse) to defendant in error. That in the transaction Hohmann acted as agent for defendant in error. That the instrument was not a's warranted. That the contract'was rescinded, and that the consideration for which the notes were given had wholly failed.
There was a jury trial; plaintiff in error was called as a witness. The abstract contains but one question propounded to the witness, which was as follows:
Q. “Did you have a contract with S. B. Hohmann for the purchase of a piano about August 22d, 1884, and if so, state what conversation you had with him in relation to the purchase of the piano? ”
This question was objected to “for the reason that it did not lay the proper foundation for entering into the consideration of the question.” The objection was sustained. Plaintiff in error, by her attorney, then- made the following offer of testimony:
“ I offer to' show by Mrs. Coakley, the witness upon the stand, that at the time of the delivery of the note, it was understood that the delivery was conditioned upon the instrument complying with the warranty, being new and
The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.