Partners. — In an action against former copartners, upon a plea of
the statute of limitations, evidence of an acknowledgment by one,
after the dissolution, and when himself insolvent, is admissible
against both. Austin v. Bostmck, 9 Conn. 501. See also Bissell
V. Adams, 35 Conn. 299.
Members and officers of corporations. — If a corporation be a party
to a suit, the declarations of one of its stockholders and directors are
not admissible against it on the ground of their being the declarations
of a party. Fairfield County Turnpike Co. v. Thorp, 15 Conn. 179.
Evidence is not admissible to impeach the title of a school district,
claiming lands by adverse possession, that some of its members have.
Chap. IV.] TEE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 79

at times, spoken of the lands as belonging to the disseisee. South
School District v. Blakeslee, 13 Conn. 235.
A subcontractor for the building of a railroad sued the railroad
company for extra work in regrading where an embankment had set-
tled; and, among other evidence, offered his employer, the principal
contractor, as a witness, who testified that D, a director of the com-
pany, and one of the building committee, inquired of him what was to
be done in consequence of this settling, saying that the company did
not expect him to pay the expense of regrading, but only wanted to
know his opinion as to the best mode of doing it. Held, that this testi-
mony was admissible, as showing the declarations of an agent made
when acting in the business of his agency and within the scope of his
authority. Nonoioh & Worcester R. B. Co. v. Cahill, 18 Conn. 491,
492.
