
    TWELFTH WARD BANK, Respondent, v. ROGERS, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June, 1901.)
    Action by the Twelfth Ward Bank against James Rogers.
    Earley & Prendergast (Martin J. Earley, of counsel), for appellant. Charles W. Dayton, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

It seems from the testimony that the defendant received full consideration’ for his original indorsement. Upon renewal of the note he sought to show an agreement with plaintiff’s president that he should be held harmless upon his renewal indorsement. This fact is doubtful; but, even if existent, it could not affect the plaintiff’s rights, as its president. had no power to release its debtor from liability, without consideration. Judgment (68 N. Y. Supp. 393) affirmed, with costs.  