
    Correction of an Error in a Note to the Case of King vs. Kilbride, page 119.
    In the note referred to the description of the mortgage debt in the complaint was by mistake given, instead of its description in the mortgage deed. To make the matter plain the following is substituted for the entire note as it appears on page 119.
    The point decided in the last paragraph of the opinion will not be understood without a statement of the facts upon which the question of the insufficiency of the description of the debt in the mortgage is made. The debt is thus described in the mortgage:—
    ‘ The condition of this deed is such, that whereas the said grantor is justly indebted to the said grantee in the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, as evidenced by his promissory note of even date herewith, payable to said grantee or order, as therein appears, with interest at six per cent per annum, payable semiannually ; now therefore, if said note shall be well and truly paid according to its tenor, then this deed shall be void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect.”
    The note, was as follows :
    “ Seymour, June 29th, 1887.
    “ On the first day of August, 1887, I promise to pay to the order of John King the sum of eighteen dollars, and thereafter the. further sum of eighteen dollars on the first day of each succeeding month until the entire sum of fifteen hundred dollars shall have been paid ; any fraction of said sum to complete said entire sum of fifteen hundred dollars to be paid together with the last payment, with interest at six per cent, per annum payable semi-annually upon such sum as shall be due. The maker of this note hereby reserves the right, which -is granted to him by the payee, that he shall have the right to make payments to any extent upon this note at any time and to any amount in excess of said eighteen dollars per month. Yalue received. William: Kilbride.”
     