Charlotte Bank v. Wilson ( 1927 )

Connor, J.

The jury having found, - as appears from the answer to the third issue, that the execution of the two notes, each in the sum of $2,500, was not procured by fraud and misrepresentation, as-alleged in the answer, it is immaterial whether or not the note for $5,000, was executed in renewal or in payment of said' two notes. The jury has further found, as appears from the answer to the fourth issue, that de fendant had knowledge of all the facts which he now alleges as constituting fraud at the time he executed the note upon which this action is brought. In view of these findings and of the admissions in the answer, plaintiff was, as the jury found, a holder in due course of both notes for $2,500; defendant has failed to show any defense which would have availed him in an action by plaintiff to recover judgment upon these notes. The defenses set up in the answer in this action to recover judgment upon the note for $5,000, whether the same was given in renewal or in payment of said notes, cannot, therefore, avail defendant, unless there was error in the admission or exclusion of evidence, or in the instructions pertinent to the third and fourth issues.

We have carefully considered the exceptions upon which defendant’s assignments of error are based. They cannot be sustained. We do not deem it necessary to set out these exceptions in detail or to discuss them. The execution of the note sued on by defendant is admitted; he has failed to sustain the allegations of the answer, upon which he relies for defense to plaintiff’s recovery. The judgment must be affirmed. There is

No error.