
    Thomas P. Wallace, App’lt, v. Herman Kaempf, Resp’t.
    N. Y. C. C.,
    December 17. 1894.
    
      George W. Wallace, for app’lt; Hahn, Myers & Browner, for resp’t.
   Fitzsimons, J.

The complaint was rightfully dismissed. There is nothing in the evidence submitted showing that plaintiff parted with any security or claim which they held against Bartz in consideration of the note in suit, or tliat they even extended the term of credit,—in fact it seems that they parted with nothing of value ; therefore the note sued upon is void for the want of consideration. The judgment must therefore be affirmed, with costs.  