
    W. D. Chemical Company, Appellant, v. Walter Teel, Appellee.
    Gen. No. 6,165.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Payment, § 6
      
      —when giving of note for pre-existing indebtedness constitutes payment. The making a note for a pre-existing debt constitutes payment thereof where it is expressly agreed that it shall be in payment of the debt and the creditor subsequently sells the note to a third person.
    2. Payment, § 29
      
      —when evidence insufficient to establish that note given in payment of debt was a forgery. In an action for the purchase price of merchandise under a contract, where it appeared that a note given in payment of the debt was transferred to a third person and suit brought against defendant, in which defendant pleaded the general issue, forgery and another special «plea, and a verdict of no cause of action was rendered in defendant’s favor, and defendant could have proved several defenses under the issues, including that of forgery, in the absence of proof as to what particular defense was relied upon in the suit on the note, evidence held, insufficient to sustain a finding that the jury found in the trial of the suit on the note that it was a forgery.
    
      Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. John M. Niehaus, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed February 8, 1916.
    Rehearing denied April 6, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by W. D. Chemical Company, plaintiff, against Walter Teel, defendant, on a written contract for the purchase of merchandise. From a judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals.
    Keithley & Keithley, for appellant.
    C. N. Barnes and Shelton McGrath, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same ¿opio and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Dibell

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Trial, § 68*—when offer of proof insufficient. An offer of proof which does not disclose what the answer is expected to be is insufficient.  