
    Bryant versus Couillard.
    No action upon a promissory note can be maintained by an indorsee wlio took it, knowing it to have been obtained by fraud.
    Exceptions to an instruction given to the jury, on the ground that there was no evidence calling for such instruction, are not to be sustained, unless they show that there was no such evidence.
    Exceptions.
    Assumpsit by the indorsee against the indorser of a promissory note. The exceptions recite some of the circumstances, under which the note was obtained, but do not purport to present all the evidence in the case.
    Wells, J. instructed the jury that, if the note was obtained by fraud, and negotiated to the plaintiff with the knowledge, on his part, of the fraud, the action is not maintainable. Verdict for defendant. «
    
    
      Ruggles, for the plaintiff.
    The objection is, that there was no particle of evidence, which could call for such an instruction.
    
      Tallman and Smith, for the defendant.
   Howard, J.,

orally.—The instruction is admitted to be correct, if the evidence had been such as to furnish any occasion for it. But the exceptions do not purport to present all the evidence in the case. For any thing exhibited here, there might be testimony to which the instruction was strictly adapted. The law raises no presumption, that instructions given to a jury were inapplicable or inappropriate.

Exceptions overruled.  