
    James H. Holt vs. Alva Payne
    — Error from Washington County.
    The principles decider! in Holt vs. Clemmons, at the present term, respecting-the validity o£ a title executed by an administrator, in conformity with a title bond given by his intestate, recognized and affirmed.
    This suit was brought upon one of the notes given by the plaintiff in error (Holt) to Lewis 0. Clemmons, for the purchase money of the tract of land mentioned in the case of Holt vs. Clemmons, decided at the present term. The note was indorsed by Clemmons to Payne, and the suit was brought by Payne-against both maker and indorser. Holt pleaded in this case, as-ín the former, a failure of consideration. Clemmons made no-defense. At the trial, there was read in evidence Clemmons’ title to the land, a deed executed to him on the 25th January, 1846, by Thomas and Rebecca Baxter, administrators de T>owis-non of the estate of James Hensley, deceased, in conformity with an order of the probate court of Austin county. The suit was instituted on the 22d of October, 1846. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff below, and a writ of error sued out by Holt, which brought the case into this court.
    "Webb for plaintiff in error.
    Rivers for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Lipscomb

delivered the opinion of the court.

The suit in this case was brought on a note of hand given by Holt to Lewis C. Clemmons, and indorsed by Clemmons to Payne. The suit was against the maker, and indorser, Clem-mons. Yerdict and judgment against both, from which Holt, the maker, brought a writ of error. The statement of facts on which the case is presented is short; but it appears that the sole defense relied on by Holt in the court below was the supposed defect of title from the administrators of Hensley to Clemmons. The effect of this defense was discussed and decided in the case of Holt vs. Clemmons, decided in this court a few days ago, and was held to be insufficient. In addition to the authority of that case, the following authorities are referred to in support of the decision of the court: Bumpas vs. Platner, 1 Johns. Ch. 213; Abbott vs. Allen, 2 Johns. Ch. 519; Van Lew vs. Parr, 2 Richardson’s Eq. R. 321.

The statement of facts discloses no fraudulent representations or concealment of facts. The judgment is affirmed.  