
    William E. Hanna, Respondent, v. Geraldine E. Mitchell et al., Appellants.
    
      Constitutional law — validity of rule 113 of Rules of Civil Practice — bills, notes and checks — action upon promissory note.
    
    
      Hanna v. Mitchell, 202 App. Div. 504, affirmed.
    (Argued January 8, 1923;
    decided February 27, 1923.)
    Appeal from a judgment, entered August 4,1922, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, which unanimously affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion by plaintiff to strike out the defendants’ answer and for judgment in favor of plaintiff pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The action was to recover upon a promissory note. The appellants contended that rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice is void (1) because chapter 370 of the Laws of 1921, under authority of which the rule was made, was an attempt to delegate legislative powers and is, therefore, invalid; (2) because rule 113 denies to defendants the right to trial by jury; (3) because rule 113 is inconsistent with the Civil Practice Act.
    
      Frederick W. Bisgood and Herbert C. Smyth for appellants.
    
      W. Montague Geer for respondent.
    
      John Godfrey Saxe, amicus curice.
    
   Judgment affirmed, with costs, on authority of General Investment Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co. (235 N. Y. 133).

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.  