1. On the trial of a claim case, it was reversible error to allow a witness for the claimant to testify, over objection of counsel for the plaintiff in íi. fa.: “I am acquainted with the land in Bulloch county which was the consideration of the notes sued on in this case. I offered Sutton $1,000 for it.” It appeared that “Sutton” was the administrator who sued on the purchase-money notes and caused to be levied the execution issued on the judgment on the land mentioned by the witness, which brought at the sale about $300 and which was credited on the fi. fa. The present levy was on other land in a different county. The evidence objected to was wholly irrelevant, and should have been rejected.
2. The other assignments of error are without substantial merit.
Judgment reversed.