The opinion
On Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
Appellants call attention to the fact we failed to pass upon their claim of error in respect to the refusal of the trial court to admit certain testimony. On the first refusal the question asked was, “Mr. Moore, before or after this meeting at Mr. Gul-ledge’s did you discuss this petition with the president, Mr. Norvill Cooper?” Objection to this was sustained. Later it was asked (in reference to a discussion not in meeting), “Q. Was anything said about the dates or holding an election ?. A. No. Q. Did he ask you as to when it would be all right with you to hold an election?” Objection, on the ground that the discussion was between two individuals and not a board meeting, was sustained.
No offer of proof was made in either instance and we have no knowledge of what the answers might have been other than as had been indicated by previous testimony. “Before there is anything to review on appeal in connection with the exclusion of evidence ‘a proper question must be asked, and, on objection thereto, an offer must be made at the time showing what evidence will be given if the witness is permitted to answer, the purpose and obj ect of the testimony sought to be introduced, and all facts necessary to establish its admissibility.’ Byam v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 328 Mo. 813, 826 , 41 S.W.2d 945, 952 ; City of St. Louis v. Pope, Mo., 121 S.W.2d 861 , 863; Missouri Digest, Appeal and Error, 205.” Jones v. Giannola, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 660, 662 . The remarks of the Supreme Court in Evinger v. Thompson, 265 S.W.2d 726, 736 , and in Conser v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 266 S.W.2d 587, 593 , are likewise applicable. Nor can we see how such testimony, even if entirely favorable to appellants, could have affected the result. As we have held, conferences, consultations and agreement's between individual directors in respect to calling an election could not serve ás a substitute for the action of the board. !
The balance of the motion is devoted to the urging that we consider and pass upon whether the August election was one required to be held under the provisions of section 165.170 RSMo 1949, V.A;M.S. The theory so submitted was not pleaded and was not presented to the trial court in any manner. We would be unwilling to convict the lower court of error (if such was error) when it had no opportunity to pass on the question. An appellate court will review a case only upon the theory on which it was submitted in the trial court. Dugan v. Trout, Mo.App., 271 S.W.2d 593, 598 , and cases cited.
The motion for rehearing is overruled