1. The ruling of the court of common pleas, that the note having been given up by the plaintiff to the defendant to be cancelled, under the circumstances stated, the action therefore could not be maintained, was erroneous. The inquiry was open whether this was a payment of the note, or a mere release of the defendant from personal liability on the note, independent of the lien on the land. If the debt was not in fact paid, and the land was still to be charged with the same by the arrangement of the parties to this settlement, the mere giving up of the note would not discharge the mortgage.
2. The further ruling of the court, excluding the proposed evidence to show that the alleged conversion and the various trespasses set forth as the ground of the present action were all
Exceptions of both parties sustained
