¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.
¶2The appellant sued the appellees for work and materials furnished, as he says, upon their promise to pay for it.
¶3The appellees had a contract for building a house; sub-let a portion of it to one Schultz, who sub-let a part of his contract to the appellant. The appellant had done a portion of the work under his contract, and been paid for such portion, partly if not wholly, by Schultz. Schultz died, and the appellant’s case is that the appellees promised that they would pay him if he would complete his contract with Schultz.
¶4This the appellees denied, and upon conflicting testimony, given more than seven years after the work was finished, the court trying the case without a jury decided against the appellant. We can not say that the judge did not come to the right conclusion.
¶5Another sub-contractor under Schultz, was a witness for the appellant, and was asked: “ What was said by Mr.
¶6Haussen to you with reference to that work then ? ” and “Bid Mr. Haussen ever pay you anything on your contract ? ”
¶7To the refusal by the court to permit those questions to be answered, the appellant excepted.
¶8It would be a sufficient answer to the exceptions that the appellant made no statement of what he expected to prove. Gaffield v. Scott, 33 Ill. App. 317; and see C. & A. R. R. v. Shenk, 131 Ill. 283.
¶9But if it was expected that the witness would say that Haussen did promise to pay and did pay the witness, that would be no corroboration of the appellant’s claim of a like promise to him. The judgment is affirmed.