87 P. 164 | Utah | 1906
This action was prosecuted by appellant against respondent to recover upon an alleged indemnity. Tbe appellant in bis complaint substantially alleges as follows: Tbat tbe re
There are three assignments of error that we can consider, namely, (1) error in overruling the demurrer to the answer; (2) that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict and hence does not support the judgment; and (3) that the court erred in admitting certain evidence against appellant’s objection, which is.more fully -specified hereafter.
The error assigned in respect to the overruling of the demurrer to the answer was not pressed by counsel for appellant in this court on the oral argument, and as, in our judgment, no error was committed by the lower court in that respect, we will not consider that matter further.
The only other error that we are permitted to consider is the one respecting the admission of' certaip evidence against appellant over his objection. The assignment of error upon this point is stated by him as follows: “Error in law occurring at the trial and excepted to by the plaintiff (appellant), to wit: The permission given defendant (respondent), to testify over plaintiff’s (appellant’s) objection to a conversation had between defendant (respondent) and one-out of the presence of plaintiff (appellant)'.” For reasons satisfactory to us we withhold the name of the person referred to, and such person will hereafter be referred to as Mr. Blank. By reference to the bill of exceptions it is disclosed that the alleged error arose under the following circumstances, viz.: "When the respondent was upon the witness stand giving tes
It will be observed that the testimony was not offered, nor, indeed, could it be considered for the purpose of establishing a material or essential part of the issues in the case. It was