
    Norwegian Plow Company v. E. B. Mower et al.
    Filed November 9, 1894.
    No. 4817.
    Review: Failure to File Briefs: Aeeiemance. Where a judgment conforms to the pleadings and evidence in the case, and no briefe are filed by either party in this court, the judgment will not be disturbed. (Damon v. City of Omaha, 38 Neb., 583.)
    Error from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Field, J.
    
      Hanoood, Ames & Kelly and E. F. Pettis, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Eavis & Hibner, contra.
    
   Norval, C. J.

This was an action upon a promissory note executed and delivered by the defendants in error to the Norwegian Plow Company for the sum of $103.42 and interest thereon. The petition is in the ordinary form. The defendants filed separate answers, each admitting the execution and delivery of the note, and setting up the defense of payment. The defendant Steiner further answered that he signed the note as surety for his co-defendant, E. B. Mower. The plaintiff replied by a general denial. There was a verdict for the defendants upon which judgment was rendered.

Upon a somewhat careful consideration of the record we are satisfied that the verdict and judgment conform to the pleadings and evidence, and neither party having filed briefs in the case, on the authority of Phenix Ins. Co. of Brooklyn v. Reams, 37 Neb., 423, and Damon v. City of Omaha, 38 Neb., 583, the judgment is

Affirmed.  