Pratt v. Hancock

Opinion by

LOGSDON, C.

Plaintiff in error relies upon three propositions for reversal, as follows:

“First. The trial court erred by refusing to permit the defendant Pratt to prove that at the time of the purchase of the supplies by the defendant Hancock, he had no personal interest in the lease and by refusing to permit the defendant Pratt to prove that the only interest he ever had was that of a representative capacity — trustee of Mr. McKenzie et al.. of Vancouver, B. O.. R. L. Hancock, Peter Adamson and the Hathaways of Tulsa, Okla.

“Second. The trial court erred in overruling the demurrer of…