
    15582.
    BAXLEY v. DYAL.
    There being some evidence in support of the defendant’s plea that the note sued on was paid to the original payee and was not purchased by the plaintiff before maturity, the court erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.
    Decided October 7, 1924.
    Complaint; from city court of Baxley — Judge Speer. March 8, 1924.
    
      Wade H. Watson, for plaintiff in error.
    
      V. E. Padgett, contra.
   Per Curiam.

Dyal sued Baxley upon a promissory note which he alleged he had purchased from another. Baxley admitted in his plea that he had executed the note, but denied that it had been purchased before maturity by Dyal, and pleaded that he had paid it to the original payee before its purchase by Dyal. There being some evidence supporting this plea, the question should have been submitted to a jury, and the court erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Luke, J.,

dissenting. In my opinion the defendant failed by his proof to carry the burden of his plea that the note had not been purchased before maturity, and the court properly overruled the motion for a new trial.  