
    Edmund S. Graf, Appellee, v. Morris Perlman, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 22,917. (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    Bills and notes, § 327
      
      —wliat is not defense in action on note. The failure of the payee of a note given as security for the maker’s performance of a real estate contract to keep his promise to extend the time for such performance does not present any defense to such note.
    
      Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Leo J. Doyle) Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed December 21, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Confession of judgment in favor of Edmund S. Graf, plaintiff, against Morris Perlman, defendant, upon a note for $100 and interest, given as additional security for the performance by defendant arid his partner, Abe Telechansky, of a real estate contract. From a judgment confirming same, defendant appeals.
    The facts appear in opinion in Graf v. Perlman, ante, p. 172, this appeal being consolidated with the appeal in that case. The only defense set up in affidavit of merits herein is the payee’s failure to keep his proipise of extension of time for performance by this defendant and his partner of the contract, which promise was the consideration of two other notes sued on in above case.
    Joseph Rosenberg, for appellant; Benjamin Rosenberg, of counsel.
    Frederick B. Hovey, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.  