Opinion
October Term, 1897.
Adrian M. Potter, for the appellant.
Ralph Earl Prime, Jr., for the respondent.
This is an action to recover the possession of personal property. The defendant based his claim of title upon a chattel mortgage, executed by the plaintiff's wife, whom he alleged to have been the former owner. This mortgage was put in evidence as part of the defendant's proof. The plaintiff's wife was then called in rebuttal to show that the chattels in controversy in the present suit were purchased by her subsequently to the execution of the mortgage. The court, under exception by the plaintiff, excluded the testimony as not being in rebuttal. This ruling was plainly erroneous, and precluded the plaintiff from proving what would have been a perfect answer to the defendant's case if established by evidence which the jury believed. The error, therefore, was serious, and demands a reversal of the judgment.
All concurred.
Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.