The opinion
"Wood, J., (on rehearing). Our attention is called to the fact that the motion for new trial does not assign as error the ruling of the trial court in excluding the answer to interrogatory No. 20 in Walker’s deposition. We therefore cannot consider the ruling of the court in excluding the answer to interrogatory No. 20. But we cannot agree with learned counsel in their contention that the answer to interrogatory No. 16 does not show that the January assessment was called by the authority of the hoard of directors. The answer to interrogatory No. 16 must be considered as a whole. True, by question No. 16 the witness was asked only whether or not another assessment was called against the certificate in December, 1923. But the witness, in answer to the question, not only answered as to the assessment for December, 1923, but also .as to the assessment for January, 1924. Although the answer covered more ground than the interrogatory, nevertheless'the answer was relevant to the issue, and was admissible. After stating that assessments were called by the board of directors for December, 1923, and the amounts thereof, the witness continues: “On January 12, 1924, .another assessment was called against certificate 279 in circle 45, which is the certificate involved in this suit. ” It occurs to us that the information sought by the interrogatory was whether or not the assessment was legally called. That is the necessary implication. That was the information desired, and when the witness stated that the December assessments were called by the board of directors, and followed this immediately by the statement that on January 12 another assessment was called, he necessarily meant that the J anuaf y assessment was likewise called by the board. An assessment could not have been legally called in any other way. When the answer is taken as a whole, it would be “sticking in the bark” to hold that the witness did not say that the January assessment was called by the board of directors.
The motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.