33 Wis. 387 | Wis. | 1873
We are inclined to the opinion that the circuit court erred in excluding the testimony offered on the part of the defendant, by which it was proposed to prove that the plaintiff agreed, at a meeting of the trustees, to donate his bill for lumber to the defendant, on condition that J. L. Rood, executor of the estate of L. Rood, would donate and surrender the claim which the estate had against the defendant; that this proposition was accepted by the executor and the defendant; and that Rood, as executor, did then and there release and discharge the claim which the estate held against the defendant, before this proposition was withdrawn. Mow it is insisted on the part of the plaintiff, that there was no consideration whatever for his agreement to donate to the defendant his bill for lumber, and that his agreement, under the circumstances, was a mere nudum pactum, and void.
It seems to us, however, that if the facts offered to be proven should be established, the plaintiff would not be permitted to recover of the defendant his lumber bill. Eor the law is well
We do not think that there was any error in excluding the other evidence offered. It was proposed to show that the plaintiff agreed to surrender and discharge all his debts against
For the error first noticed, we think the court properly set aside the verdict and granted a new trial; and the order appealed from must be affirmed.
By the Court. — Order affirmed.