ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Ellison, J.— The case of Sedgwick v. Evans, 25 Mo. App. 388, is not opposed to what we have here said. The syllabus in that case is misleading. The evidence offered under the reply in that case was of a partnership transaction, but was a separate transaction. Evidence that it was another and different transaction would, of course, tend to show that it was not the transaction pleaded in the answer. Blatz v. Lester, post p. 283. Motion overruled.