
    May H. Luehrs, Appellee, v. A. H. Marshall, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 23,244. (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Corporations, § 147
      
      —when question of oral rescission of contract for sale of stock is for jury. The question whether the seller and the purchaser of stock orally agreed to rescind the contract is for the jury, where the evidence is conflicting.
    2. Corporations, § 147*—when shoton that contract was not orally rescinded. In an action to recover on promissory notes given for the purchase price of stock, evidence held to support a finding that the contract for the sale of the stock was not orally rescinded by the parties thereto.
    3. Corporations, § 149*—when plaintiff may testify as to part of conversation with defendant relating to inability to pay for stock. In an action to recover on promissory notes given in payment for "stock, where defendant has testified as to part of a. conversation with plaintiff, the latter may also testify to a part of such conversation which related to a statement by defendant as to why he was unable to pay the notes.
    
      Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edmund K. Jabecki, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed January 30, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    . Action by May H. Luehrs, plaintiff, against A. H. Marshall, defendant, to recover upon promissory notes. From a judgment for plaintiff for $2,071.66, defendant appeals.
    W. Knox Haynes and Michael Feinberg, for appellant.
    George E. Brannan, for appellee. *
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Yois. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same tonic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Appeal and ebbob, § 1561 —when refusal to give instructions is not ground for reversal. Refusal to give instructions which were actually given in substance in other instructions is not ground for reversal.

5. Appeal and ebbob, § 573*—when exception to refusal to give instructions is insufficient. An exception to the refusal of the court to give “the instructions I have requested,” without any claim that the substance thereof was not given, is insufficient  