Osborn v. Ratliff

The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to the possession of the property because he was the owner, and the defendants claimed such possession under a chattel mortgage executed by C. S. Osborn. The plaintiff was a witness in his own behalf, and on cross-examination was asked if he had not told one Guiberson the property belonged to C. S. Osborn. This question was objected to as not proper cross-examination, hut it was over*749ruled, and the witness answered that he had not. Conceding the question was improper no possible prejudice resulted therefrom to the plaintiff. The defendants were the only…