
    JOHN ROLFE AND ISAIAH ROLFE, PARTNERS, TRADING AS STANDARD NON-SKID GRIP COMPANY, RESPONDENTS, v. EMIL T. FINGERHUT, APPELLANT.
    Submitted March 20, 1923
    Decided May 4, 1923.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court in which the following per curiam was filed:
    “The plaintiffs alleged that they sold to the defendant a number of chain hoops, to be used on automobiles; that they were delivered and accepted by the defendant and that he gave his promissory note to the plaintiffs for the amount due. The note not being paid plaintiffs brought suit to recover, and the jury found in their favor, and judgment was entered thereon fromi 'which the defendant appeals.
    “It is argued that the court erred in overruling the question asked by the defendant of the plaintiff, ‘You did state that you said you -would procure the salesmen for Finger-hut?’ The record discloses that the plaintiff has not so testified; what he did testify to was that he would assist him in securing salesmen to dispose of the merchandise, and he had not said he would procure them. The plaintiff was also asked on cross-examination: ‘Q. Did you know whether or not any salesmen were procured? A. The report was to me that they were,’ and then the defendant asked, cDid you say how many?’ This was objected to because it required an answer given when the plaintiff was not present, and was a conversation between the two brothers, brought out by the defendant’s cross-examination. The courts’ ruling upon these questions was not error.
    “It is argued that the court erred in refhsing to strike out the following: ‘Q. What was Mr. Fingerhut’s attitude toward E'rliek? A. Yerv definite. He did not seem to take any interest in what I was doing or trying to do.’ We think the court’s action correct. This question related to an interview between one of the plaintiffs and Erlick, whom lie was trying to induce to act as a salesman for the defendant who was present, and the purpose of the testimony was to show that the defendant took no interest in the effort to secure the salesmen. The argument is that this testimony was that of conclusions of the witness, but manifestly it was not, but offered as proof of the attitude of the defendant.
    “The next point is that the court refused to strike out testimony upon the g'round that it was hearsay. The defendant had brought out by cross-examination that there was a conversation between the two brothers, the plaintiffs, after they had left the presence of the plaintiff. The defendant then moved to strike out all of that testimony, including matters clearly not hearsay. If the defenctant wanted any part of the evidence stricken out upon the ground that it was hearsay, it was his duty to indicate it with particularity.
    “The remaining objections are directed to alleged errors in the charge of the court. It must suffice to say that we have examined them all and find them insubstantial.
    “The charge covered the entire case, and dealt with specific questions in detail, but not in such a manner as to lead the jury to believe that in any instance the court was seeking to impose any limitation upon the judgment of the jury.
    “Upon the whole case, and following the direction of the Practice act we perceive no legal error which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the defendant. New Practice act L. 1912, § 27.
    “The judgment will be affirmed.”
    For the appellant, William S. Angleman.
    
    For the respondents, Whittemore & McLean.
    
   Pek Cukiaji.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Tren chard, Ivaltscii, Black, Katzenbach, White, Heppeni-ieimer, Gardner, Ackerson, Van Bus-kirk, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.  