
    SHIPMAN et al. v. PORTER.
    No. 4240.
    Opinion Filed May 11, 1915.
    Rehearing Denied June 22, 1915.
    (149 Pac. 902.)
    LIABILITY ON NOTE — Pleadings—Judgment. Syllabus Same as in the case oí Robert Shipman et al. v. H. P. Porter, ante, 149 Pac. 901.
    (Syllabus by Collier, C.)
    
      Error from District Court, Tulsa County; L. M. Poe, Judge.
    
    
      Action by H. P. Porter against Robert Shipman and David Shipman. Judgment for the plaintiff on the pleadings, and defendants bring error.
    Reversed and remanded.
    
      Biddison & Campbell and W. V. Biddison, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      George T. Brown, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

COLLIER, C.

This action was begun in the district court of Tulsa county by H. P. Porter, defendant in error, hereinafter called plaintiff, against Robert Shipman and David Shipman, plaintiffs in error, hereinafter called defendants, to recover upon a promissory note.

The parties, pleadings, rulings, and errors assigned in •this case are the same, except as to the time of maturity of the promissory note sued upon, as in the case of Robert Shipman et al. v. H. P. Porter, ante, 149 Pac. 901.

Upon the authorities cited in said case, this cause should be reversed and remanded.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  