This is an action for replevin brought by the plaintiff against the defendants to recover the property mentioned in the writ; the plaintiff claiming the right to rescind a sale of goods made by it to the defendants Peirce and White on the ground of fraud.

In 1886 the plaintiff was engaged in the manufacturing and selling of tobacco in the city of Detroit, and defendants Peirce and White were engaged in the selling of tobacco at-retail in the city of Grand Rapids. The sale was effected through a traveling salesman of plaintiff, and at his urgent request.1 Upon the trial of the cause in the court below, the judge, at the close of plaintiff’s case, ruled that no evidence of fraud had been introduced, and that there was no evidence *635to go the jury on the question of fraud, and directed a verdict for the defendants, and refused the plaintiff’s request to be allowed to introduce more evidence.

Upon these rulings of the court below arise the exceptions upon which error is assigned.

The evidence which the plaintiff asked to introduce after it had closed its case was on the subject of the solvency of the parties at the time the goods were purchased, and was-cumulative in its character. It was discretionary with the judge at that stage of the proceedings to permit it or not, and we do not think he abused his discretion. We are also clearly of the opinion that the judge was right in directing a verdict for the defendants. The . evidence is all returned» and we fail to discover any that tends to prove that the-goods were purchased with a fraudulent intent.

The judgment is affirmed.