¶1 This case, and the preceding one of Coe v. Kutinsky et als., the same defendants, were argued together before us, and for the most part present similar questions. The pleadings are substantially the same.
¶2 Evidence of declarations by Case, that he was acting for others than himself in making the purchase of the plaintiff’s tobacco, were excluded. The argeement, Exhibit A, between Case and Kutinsky, Adler & Company, after, being excluded, was, at the close of the trial, admitted pro forma by the trial court, after which a nonsuit was granted, and *694 judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants Kutinsky, Adler & Company.
¶3 In the present case it appears from the evidence that the plaintiff's tobacco was purchased by Case ten days before the agreement between him and Kutinsky, Adler & Company was executed. The credit was given to Case. The •agreement, although in evidence, did not tend to prove that the plaintiff's tobacco was purchased for Kutinsky, Adler & Company. There was no other evidence which tended to prove that it was purchased for them. The nonsuit was therefore properly granted. _ .
¶4 The declarations of Case, for.the reasons stated in the preceding case as to similar declarations, were inadmissible to prove his agency or partnership with the other defendants in this transaction, and they were properly excluded.
¶5 There is no error. .
¶6 In this opinion the other judges concurred.