
    Ware v. Tipton.
    
      Appeal from Mills District Court
    
    
      December 21.
    Action to recover $100 which plaintiff alleges defendant undertook to pay him on account of a certain farm, sold by defendant to plaintiff, remaining in possession of a tenant, whereby plaintiff was deprived of the occupation of the same. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
    
      3. B. Latimer for the appellant — Bale & Stowe for the appellee.
   Beck, J.

The court refused to instruct the jury, upon motion of plaintiff, to the effect that, if defendant informed plaintiff that another had promised to pay plaintiff $100 for the consideration alleged in the petition, and thereby plaintiff was induced to purchase the farm of defendant, this rendered defendant liable to plaintiff. The refusal thus to instruct was correct. By its terms the instruction makes defendant liable for informing plaintiff what another had proposed to do without any attempt or intention on his (defendant’s) part thereby to bind himself.

We cannot say that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, which is one of the grounds of the assignments of errors. No other questions are raised hy the record.

Affirmed.  