
    JOSEPH NICKERSON, et al., Respondents, v. EMIL RUGER, et al., Appellants.
    
      Promissory note—what proof necessary for recovery on note given for accommodation or taken try fraud.
    
    Before Curtis, Ch. J., and Freedman, J.
    
      Decided June 18, 1880.
    Appeal from judgment and order denying defendants’ motion for new trial.
    The action was upon a promissory note.
    The court at General Term said: “The last trial seems to have proceeded strictly in accordance with the rule laid down by the court of appeals in 76 F. Y. 279. The defendants were allowed to show their equities, and the whole case was submitted to the jury with the instruction, in substance, that whether the note was given for accommodation or taken by fraud, the plaintiffs, before they could recover, had to show affirmatively, as part of their case, that they took the note before maturity, and that, when they took it, they took it without notice of defendants’ • equities, and either then parted with a valuable consideration on the faith of it, or agreed to part with a valuable consideration on the faith of it, and subsequently, before maturity and notice, did so.”
    
      G. W. Cotterell, for appellants.
    
      W. W. Goodrich,, for respondents.
   Opinion by Freedman, J.; Curtis, Ch. J., concurred.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.  