pellant’s mortgage, the excluded evidence was immaterial, and the conclusions of law drawn by the trial court from the undisputed facts were entirely correct. Judgment affirmed. All concur.
John T. Pirie, George Scott, Robert Scott, and ANDREW
McLeisH, Co-Partners under the firm name and style of
Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v.
Georce GituiTt, Witt1am GILLiTT, and Harvey Gillitt, Co-Partners doing business under the firm name and
style of G1tuiTT Bros., Defendants; Harvey GiLuirt, Defendant and Appellant.
Directing Verdict—Evidence of Partnership.
1. When the court directs a verdict for either party, the evidence of the opposite party must be considered as undisputed, and it must be given the most favorable construction for him that it will properly bear, and he must have the benefit of all reasonable inferences arising from his testimony; and it is only where his testimon'y, thus considered, could not legally sustain a verdict in his favor, that a court is warranted in directing a verdict against him.
2. The fact that a party was a member of a co-partnership cannot be proven by the unauthorized statements and representations of one who was a member of the firm.
3. Nor can the fact that a party was not a member of a co-partnership be proven by his own prior statements to that effect, even where such statements were made to an agent of the party seeking to hold him as such partner.
(Opinion Filed Nov. 23, 1891.)
APPEAL from district court, Richland county; Hon. D. E. Moraan, Judge, presiding.
W. E. Purcell and L. B, Everdell, for appellant. Ball & Smith, for respondents.
Action on account for goods sold, Verdict for plaintiffs by direction. Motion for new trial denied, and judgment entered on the verdict. From the judgment and order refusing a new trial defendant Harvey Gillitt appeals. Reversed.
