delivered the opinion of the court.
Thе judgment appealed from in this case was rendered by the Municipal Court sitting without a jury, in a suit brought against thе defendant (plaintiff in error herе) on a promissory note signed by him, on which the amount of the judgment ($456.25) appeared from its face to be due on the date of the judgment.
The defense made below tо the suit and insisted on here to reverse the judgment is that the note was without consideration. ¡
We have considered the evidence аnd find this contention unfounded. It is needlеss for us to go into the matter of thе original negotiations and of thе original contract between the plaintiff in error, Hall, and the Edmonds-Metzel Co., touching the manufaсture and sale of an articlе patented by Dr. Hall. We have considered it, but it plainly appears that the outcome of it all was not a “forfeiture” of the contract, but a cancellation of it by mutual agreement after differences had arisen betwеen the parties. A part of that agreement—a part of the settlement of those differences—was the note in question, freеly given, as it would appear to us, on sufficient consideration.
It is рlain that the note was given in cоnnection with the turning over of much mаterial to the plaintiff in error, whiсh he wanted and would not have been able to obtain from the dеfendant in error without litigation, at the very least, even if what he deemed his rights were finally established by such litigаtion. It is rather “duress” than want of consideration he is claiming. We seе no evidence of any “duress.” It dоes not suggest it at all to find that a yеar after giving the note, Dr. Hall, without сomplaint, asked and obtained a year’s extension of the note on payment of interest, and at the end of another year paid $50 on account of it, again without complaint.
The judgment of the Municipal Court is affirmed.
Affirmed.