
    John A. Merritt, Appellant, v. Walter Briggs, Respondent.
    (Argued January 8, 1874;
    decided May term, 1874.)
    
      It seems, that under a general denial in an answer in an action for goods sold and delivered, the defendant is entitled to show that he dealt with plaintiff as agent for another, whose name was disclosed, and to whom the credit was given.
    This was an action to recover the price of some cattle alleged to have been sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant.
    The answer was a general denial. Upon the trial, defendant gave evidence tending to show that he purchased the cattle, as a cattle-broker, for one Hall, and upon his credit, plaintiff knowing of the agency. Held, that the defence was" admissible under the answer; also, that the objection could not be raised upon appeal, as it was in no form made upon the trial.
    Defendant, as a witness in his own behalf, was asked this question: “ State on whose credit the cattle were bought ?” This was objected to generally, no ground of objection being stated;the objection was overruled, and witness answered, that he bought them upon Mr. Hall’s credit. Held, that the question was incompetent, as it 'called for the witness’ conclusion or opinion; but that the objection was insufficient to make the exception available.
    
      S. H. Thayer for the appellant.
    
      Tomlinson, Winsor & Marsh for the respondent.
   Earl, C.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.  