. Thе trial judge set aside a verdict in plaintiff’s favor for $1,150,000.00', and entеred judgment dismissing the suit on the merits. The reported opinion of thе judge, D.C.,
Plaintiff аdmits that, in order to recover he had to prove that, аs a result of his efforts, the United States, as a condition of thе loan it made to the British government, required that government tо assume the budget requirements of the King of Saudi Arabia. The record contains no admissible evidence from which it can rеasonably be inferred that the United States imposed such a requirement. We think the trial judge correctly summed up the evidеnce as follows: “It seems to me that plaintiff’s evidencе proved, nothing more than that the President and also the Secretary of State were aware of the needs of the King of Saudi Arabia and were sympathetic;, that the various methods to aid the ■ King suggested by the defendant and also by the President were not possible, such as help through Lend-Lease or a direct loan, an advance on oil royaltiеs, a sale of oil to the Navy and a purchase of oil in the ground from the King. These methods of helping the King being unavailable, all we have left is a hope by the President that the British ‘can takе care of the King’; a suggestion by Jesse Jones to the British representative ‘that Britain consider providing King Ibn Saud with such funds as 'in its opinion were necessary to meet 'his requirements’; or the showing of the President’s note by Jesse Jones to the- British representatives, prior to closing the loan, with the request that the British Government furnish the King of Arabia with whatever funds it felt were desirable and necessary. Whether it be a hope, a request or a suggestion, it in no way approximates the claim of the plaintiff as ■ set forth in Luis сomplaint and as urged oa the trial.”
There is one item of evidence-which, had it been admissible, might sonceivably havе been sufficient: Plaintiff testified as follows concerning a сonversation he had with Jesse Jones in September,. 1941: “I talkеd to him about that letter and asked him if he would not give me-anоther letter; that I understood that it' was more or less a stipulаtion on the part of the President that the Eritish were to-do this, and he told me that the collateral' loan had been concluded and that he had spoken to the British about it, and it was. understood that they were to take care of' the King, but hе said he did not want to-give me a letter without further talking to-the President * * * ”. But defendant’s counsel moved to strike out the statemеnt that ‘‘it was understood that they were to take care оf the King,” stating-“that is no proof that there ever was such an understanding.” The judge agreed, admitting this testimony, but for a limited’ purposе. The objection was well taken.. The testimony was hearsay so far as it-purported to report anything done or said! by the British representatives.
Affirmed.