The opinion
On Motion for Rehearing.
We find that we were in error in stating that the witness Neeb would have testified that the 12%-inch pipe in the spring of 1922 “was worth $1.50 per foot.” As disclosed by the statement of facts in an indefinite way, he would have testified that such pipe was worth “$1.05” per foot. As stated in our original opinion, his examination was *253 somewhat extended. We copy the following from the statement of facts as perhaps illustrating the general character of the witness’ testimony:
“Q. What business were you engaged in in the spring of 1922? A. Well, in the banking business and oil business.
“Q. At what place? A. The bank was at Cross Plains, and the oil business was in the Pioneer field at Cross Plains.
“Q. Did you have any experience, or business, in selling casing and pipe during the spring of 1922? A. No, sir; I bought easing.
“Mr. Turner: Q. Do you or not know the market value of secondhand casing, once run, in the Pioneer field in the spring of 1922? A. I know what we paid for it; I don’t know whether we paid too much or not.
“Q. What did you pay for it? A. $1.05.”
Considering the testimony of the witness as a whole, the time fixed by the witness in stating the value, etc., in the light of the testimony of other witnesses and the finding of the jury, we retain the conclusion originally expressed that the error of the court in excluding the testimony of this witness was harmless. In the light of the record as a whole, we think it extremely improbable that a different result would have been reached had the testimony of the witness been heard by the jury in court.
In other respects we think our views have been sufficiently expressed in our original opinion, to which we adhere. We think the cases cited in behalf of the motion are distinguishable from the case made by the pleadings and the evidence in this case, and the motion for rehearing will accordingly be overruled.