— The case disclosed by the record seems to be about this: The plaintiff claimed that he sold the defendant a threshing machine for $1,200, and that the defendant had paid him $800 of the purchase price and had refused to pay the remaining unpaid $400. The defendant’s defense to the plaintiff’s demand was that the purchase price agreed on for the threshing machine was only $800, which amount he had paid plaintiff and so did not owe the $400 demanded by the plaintiff. There was a trial in the court below when the defendant had judgment.
During the progress of the trial the defendant called one Bid Evans as a witness in his behalf, who, over plaintiff’s objections, was permitted to testify that a short time before the
It is needless to cite authority to show that the admission of secondary evidence of the contents of the note, under the circumstances just stated, was improper. If the existence and execution of the note had been established, followed by proof of its loss, then secondary evidence of its contents would have been admissible. Perry v. Roberts,
As the evidence touching the contract price of the machine was rather evenly balanced, we can not say what effect the admission of the proof of the contents of the note, as testified to by witness Evans, had on the mind of the jury in determining the issue, and we shall accordingly reverse the judgment and remand the cause.