
    John J. Mulgrew v. Ellen G. Cocharen, Survivor of Hersele and Alexander Cocharen.
    [See 96 Mich. 422.]
    
      Novation^-Bufficiency of evidence.
    
    On a rehearing of this case, the same conclusion is reached as on the original hearing, namely, that there was evidence to go to the jury on the question of novation, and the judgment is affirmed.
    Rehearing, upon application of plaintiff, of case reported in 96 Mich. 422.
    Argued January 5, 1894.
    Affirmed January 26, 1894.
    The facts are stated in the former report of the case.
    
      DeLong & O’Hara, for appellant.
    
      Brotan é Lovelace, for defendant.
   Long, J.

A rehearing was ordered in this case. The questions have been reargued, and, after a careful examination of the record, we are satisfied that there was evidence to go to the jury upon the question of novation, — the same conclusion reached when the former opinion was rendered.

The judgment will therefore be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.  