
115 U.S. 222 (1885)
LANCASTER
v.
COLLINS.
Supreme Court of United States.
Submitted October 23, 1885.
Decided November 2, 1885.
IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.
*224 Mr. George A. Castleman for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
*225 MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court. After stating the facts in the language reported above, he continued:
It is contended that the answer alleges that the agreement made by Collins with Lancaster was made with the latter as president of the company, and that it does not allege any agreement by Lancaster personally, to take the stock subscribed for by Collins and pay the note, while the verdict was rendered for the defendant on the theory that there was such an agreement by Lancaster personally. We think that a fair construction of the answer, in view of the history of the case, as given in the evidence, is, that it alleges such an agreement. Lancaster received from Collins the certificate for the stock, with a transfer of it in blank signed by Collins, and indorsed the note, and it was discounted for the benefit of the company. The question of the existence of such an agreement by Lancaster personally was fairly put to the jury in the charge of the court. There was conflicting evidence in regard to it. This court cannot review the weight of the evidence, and can look into it only to see whether there was error in not directing a verdict for the plaintiff on the question of variance, or because there was no evidence to sustain the verdict rendered.
It is also assigned for error, that the court refused to permit the counsel for the plaintiff to make the closing argument to the jury, the contention on the part of the plaintiff being that the affirmative was with him. But this is purely a question of practice, to be reviewed only by a motion for a new trial in the trial court, and is not the proper subject of a bill of exceptions or of a writ of error, because it does not affect the merits of the controversy. Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 363, 370.
*226 The plaintiff, as a witness, at the trial, was asked, on cross-examination, by the defendant, what was the value of the 130 shares of stock, and whether it was good security for the $10,000 note. The question was objected to as immaterial and irrelevant, but was admitted. The answer was, that if it had been paid up, he would have thought it good security, but it was not paid up and he thought it was not good security. The answer did not tend to prejudice the plaintiff, but the contrary; for he was seeking to prove that he had not taken the stock personally as security for his indorsement, and the fact that the stock was inadequate security to him went rather to show that he was not looking for security for his personal liability. Besides, the question was put on cross-examination, and was proper as showing the character of the stock, in view of the evidence the plaintiff had given, on his direct examination, as to the transaction respecting the stock.
The defendant was allowed, under objection, to put in evidence, from the book of minutes of the board of directors of the company, the proceedings of the board at four meetings held between the time of the original transaction in regard to the stock and the date of the note on which the judgment was recovered, that note being a renewal of prior notes. These proceedings were in the handwriting of the defendant, who was the secretary of the company, and the plaintiff, who was a director of the company, was present at all of the meetings in question. The proceedings contained nothing which appeared to relate to this controversy, but referred only to the purchase of property by the company, and to the mode of paying for stock, and the powers of the secretary, and sundry minor matters. The objection made, at the time, to the introduction of these minutes, was, that they were irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, and tended to confuse, in the minds of the jury, the true issue to be tried, and could not throw any light upon the question on trial. The same objection was made to the putting in evidence of the proceedings of a meeting of the stockholders of the company, at which the plaintiff was present, held prior to the date of the note on which the judgment was recovered, and of the proceedings of nine meetings *227 of the board of directors, and one meeting of the stockholders, held after that date, at all of which the plaintiff was present. These proceedings contained nothing which appeared to relate to this controversy, but they showed the pecuniary embarrassment of the company, and the execution by it of a deed of trust to secure its indebtedness, and the final sale of its property. The only matter in all these proceedings which could possibly have operated to the prejudice of the plaintiff was the fact that the stock had become worthless, it being argued that the jury might have been induced thereby to relieve the defendant from paying any more on account of the worthless stock, after he had paid the $3,000 to the company, and the one-half of the judgment to O'Reilly. But we think it sufficiently appears from other testimony that the stock became worthless. Aside from this, we do not see anything in the proceedings objected to which could possibly have harmed the plaintiff more than the defendant, or have benefited the defendant to the prejudice of the plaintiff. To show that the stock was worthless, showed that neither party could derive any advantage from it, and left the case between the plaintiff and the defendant to be decided without reference to any value in the stock. No judgment should be reversed in a court of error when it is clear that the error could not have prejudiced, and did not prejudice, the rights of the party against whom the ruling was made. Deery v. Cray, 5 Wall. 795, 803; Gregg v. Moss, 14 Wall. 564, 569; Lucas v. Brooks, 18 Wall. 436, 454; Allis v. Insurance Co., 97 U.S. 144, 145; Cannon v. Pratt, 99 U.S. 619, 623; Mining Co. v. Taylor, 100 U.S. 37, 42; Hornbuckle v. Stafford, 111 U.S. 389, 394.
Judgment affirmed.
