
    Greenwood and another v. Anderson.
    Where the instrument sued on is made an exhibit and filed as a part of the petition, it cannot bo excluded on the ground of variance. (Note 50.)
    Whcro a now cause of action is set up by an amendment to the petition, objection should bo made by exception to the amended petition; it cannot be made to the introduction of the new cause of action in evidence.
    Non: 50. — Peters v. Crittenden, ante, lit.
    Error from Nacogdoches. The plaintiffs in error brought suit on a sealed nolo described in (lie original petition as tiie promissory nóte of the defendant. Tiie defendant pleaded a general denial and set-off. At the trial the plaintiffs liad leave to amend and amended their petition, describing tiie note as a writing obligatory. They also made an exhibit of the note and filed it as a pan of the amended petition.
    'Die court refused to permit the note to be read in evidence. There was judgment for the defendant, and tiie plaintiffs brought a suit of error.
    
      T. 3. Jennings, for plaintiffs in error.
   Wheeler, J.

ft is not perceived on what grouud the court refused to permit the note to be given in evidence. When the note itself was exhibited and made a part of the petition it could not he excluded on the ground of variance. If tlio instrument described and that exhibited were not substantially tiie same, the petition might perhaps be obnoxious to exceptions on the ground of repugnancy or inconsistency in its averments. But the objection could not be taken to the admissibility of tiie note in evidence. There could be no question of variance in tiie case.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.  