2. Dealings by one with brokers in the absence of the intestate, though with the latter's money and on his behalf, were not transactions with the intestate, within the meaning of the statute.

-Morris v. Norton, 75 Fed. 912.

....21 C. C. A. 553

3. The husband of a deceased party, defending an action as her executor, is not precluded, by Rev. St. § 858, from testifying to incidents, occurring with third parties for the benefit of the deceased, as to which she, if living, could not have given testimony to contradict his, although in such transactions he acted at the time as her agent.

-Hinchman v. Parlin & Örendorff Co., 74 Fed. 698........21 C. C. A. 273 Examination-Cross-examination.

4. Matters of defense not referred to in the original examination of one of plaintiff's witnesses cannot be brought out by defendant on his crossexamination.

--Goddard v. Crefield Mills, 75 Fed. $18.

Re-examination.

.21 C. C. A. 539

5. After plaintiff's have given their evidence in rebuttal, and the case is
closed by both sides, a witness cannot be recalled by defendants to
give evidence which might have been offered when he was first called.
-Goddard v. Crefield Mills, 75 Fed. S1S...
.21 C. C. A. 590

213

VOL. 31, U. S. APPEALS REPORTS.

(6th Circuit.)

American Loan & Trust Co. v. Union
Trust Co. (76 F. 1005; 21 C. C. A. 598) 761
Arbogast v. Seawell (65 F. 742; 13 C. C.
A. 101)..

Armstrong v. Chemical Nat. Bank (65 F.
573; 13 C. C. A. 47)..

Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Camp (65 F. 952; 13 C. C. A. 233)..

Central Trust Co. of New York v. Monroe
County (67 F. 84; 14 C. C. A. 314).... 387
Central Trust Co. of New York v. Rich-
mond, N., I. & B. R. Co. (68 F. 90; 15
C. C. A. 273).

Baughman v. Seawell (65 F. 742; 13 C.
C. A. 101).

30

Berry v. Seawell (65 F. 742; 13 C. C. A. 101)

30

Bissell Carpet Sweeper Co., Ex parte (76
F. 1006; 21 C. C. A. 599).

761

30
675
75 Central Trust Co. of New York v. State of
Tennessee (67 F. 84; 14 C. C. A. 314).. 387
Chattanooga, R. & C. R. Co. v. Evans
(66 F. 809; 14 C. C. A. 116)..
Chemical Nat. Bank of New York v. Arm-
strong (65 F. 573; 13 C. C. A. 47)....
Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Farra
(66 F. 496; 13 C. C. A. 602).
Cincinnati St. Ry. Co. v. Whitcomb (66
F. 915; 14 C. C. A. 183).

432

75

306

374

Butchers' & Drovers' Stockyard Co. v.
Louisville & N. R. Co. (67 F. 35; 14
C. C. A. 290)......

City of Findlay v. Pertz (66 F. 427;
C. C. A. 559)..

13

340

252

Compton v. Wabash R. Co. (GS F. 263; 15
C. C. A. 397)..

486

Central Trust Co. of New York v. Condon (67 F. 84; 14 C. C. A. 314)......

Condon v. Eager (67 F. 84; 14 C. C. A. 314) 387

387

VOL. 35, U. S. APPEALS REPORTS.

(2d Circuit.)