
    MINNEAPOLIS PLOW WORKS v. C. O. BURNHAM.
    
    November 17, 1911.
    Nos. 17,244—(82).
    Promissory note — fraud.
    Action upon promissory notes. Defense, fraud and want of consideration. Decision in favor of plaintiff. Held: The trial court did not err in denying a new trial. [Reporter.]
    Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $393.21, balance alleged to be due upon two promissory notes. The answer alleged an agreement under which defendant sold farm implements for plaintiff, that plaintiff fraudulently represented that the notes were accounts of goods sold to defendant, and he had no opportunity to read the notes before signing them and there was no consideration for them. The reply was a general denial. The case was tried before Hale, J., who made findings and as conclusion of law ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $367.72. Prom an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, and from the judgment entered pursuant to the findings, he appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      O. Senningsen, for appellant.
    
      George S. Grimes, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 133 N. W. 1134.
    
   Peb Cubiam.

Action to recover on two promissory notes made by defendant to plaintiff. The answer alleged fraud and want of consideration. The case was tried by the court without a jury and decided in favor of plaintiff. Defendant appealed from an order refusing a new trial.

We have examined the record, and reach the conclusion that there was no error.

Order affirmed.  