
    Thomas Newlan v. Lombard University.
    1. Action—change of name of plaintiff. Where a promissory note was given to the Illinois Liberal Institute, whose name was subsequently changed, by an act of the legislature of this State, to that of Lombard University, the act authorizing the institution by its new name to sue for and collect all demands : Held, a suit on such note was properly brought in the new name.
    2. New trial —finding of jury. Where the ívhole case turns upon the evidence of a party to the suit, and that of an agent of the adverse party, and their tegtimony differs as to important facts, this court will not grant a new trial because the jury have given credit to the testimony of the agent.
    3. Arbitration. In case of a submission to arbitration and award, if the parties refuse to abide the award, and make a new arrangement, this ivill be a waiver of the rights of the parties under the award.
    Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of the city of Aurora; the Hon. Richard G. Montony, Judge, presiding.
    Mr. C. J. Metzner, for the appellant.
    Messrs. Canfield & Sherwin, for the appellee.
   Mr. Justice Breese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action on a promissory note executed by Thomas Uewlan to the Illinois Liberal Institute, for a scholarship therein. The name of this institution was subsequently changed, by an act of the general assembly, to that of Lombard University, and to it was transferred all the rights and. obligations at that time pertaining to the Illinois Liberal Institute; and was empowered .to sue for and collect all demands then held by the institution against third parties.

The demand in suit was one of that description, and no point of law is raised in the case calling for a decision by this court. The whole case turns upon the testimony 5f appellant, and O. P. West, the financial agent of the plaintiff. They differ as to some important facts; and as the jury have given credit to West, and perceiving nothing in the record to question the propriety of their finding, we can not interfere to disturb the verdict and judgment.

It is claimed by appellant there was a submission of the matter in difference to arbitrators, and that the note was merged in the award. There is but slight evidence of any submission, and if there was, it was waived by the subsequent arrangement to which West testified.

There being no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  