Opinion op the Court by
Affirming;
Upon the return of the case of May v. May, et al.,
Appellant urges that an allegation of payment in her answer, based upon certain indorsements upon the note and mortgage evidencing payment, is undenied. There is no reply, it is true; but in his petition W. X, May ext plained that these.indorsements were made upon the execution of the deed,, which was adjudged, void,.in the opinion, supra. That deed- was to satisfy,the mortgage; and when it was held void, the mortgage was -held valid. Issue was sufficiently joined., She also complains- that-her affirmative allegation that she did. not sign the mortgage is'not traversed. The petition alleges that she executed it.
Appellant complains ■ because a continuance was not-allowed her upon her motion. To sustain her motion she filed her own affidavit, stating, in substance, that-if she had sufficient time she could prove that the mortgage was fraudulent. Upon this., she was not. entitled to.,.a continuance; for she had theretofore . presented, this issue, had it adjudicated, and been here with it upon ’appeal. At no time could'she relitigate the same question. ■ There was no error in refusing' her a continuance- fofi this purpose.
The petition in the action was lost. The plaintiff was permitted to substitute the petition without a reference to the commissioner. Of this tiie appellant complains; though she does not complain that the substituted petition differed in any respect from the lost original. We held in Commonwealth v. Keger,
There is no error in the record. The judgment is af-' firmed.
