Opinion by
Tbe action was brought to recover on a promissory note drawn by tbe defendаnt and payable to tbe order of tbe plaintiff in tbe sum of three thousand dollars, bеaring date December 14, 1908, and payable March 4, 1909. In tbe affidavit of defense filed the execution and delivery of tbe note were admitted, but liability thereon was denied, and it was there averred that tbe note was made and delivered to tbe рlaintiff at tbe latter’s request and for bis sole accommodation; and further that tbе plaintiff was indebted to tbe defendant in tbe sum of one thousand dollars, on acсount of money loaned him by tbe defendant, for which indebtedness tbe latter would claim a certificate upon trial of tbe case. A reply to this counterclaim was made in which a consideration for tbe note was alleged and liability for tbе counterclaim was denied. Tbe case was tried on tbe issues thus defined, and resultеd in a verdict for tbe plaintiff for tbe full amount of Ms claim. A motion for a new trial followed which was simply a renewal of tbe contention that tbe note recovered upon was without consideration sufficient in law to sustain tbe plaintiff’s claim, but for very different reason than that urged upon the trial, namely, that tbe consideration wаs illegal because transgressive of public policy. A new trial having been refused, this appeal was taken, Tbe assignments of error are five in
The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.