
    Harry Rosenberg et al. vs. Ethel Burlingame.
    Maltbie, C. J., Haines, Hinman, Banks and Avery, Js.
    Submitted on briefs October 1st
    decided November 5th, 1935.
    
      Samuel I. Safenovitz, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
    
      Thomas M. Shields, for the appellee (defendant).
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs sued to recover a balance claimed to be due upon an automobile purchased by the defendant from them and sums claimed to be due for supplies and services furnished in connection with it. The defendant pleaded full payment. The only question presented is whether or not the trial court erred in finding this defense proven. No substantial corrections can be made in the finding and it is sufficient to sustain the conclusion of the trial court.

There is no error.  