
    Parker v. Raynal.
    Tinder a plea, in an action against the maker of a note, that the holders of the note prior to the plaintiff were aware of the failure of the consideration for which it was given, unaccompanied with any allegation that plaintiff received the note with notice, or under suspicious circumstances, evidence of notice to a former holder is inadmissible, as irrelevant; nor would proof of notice to the plaintiff be admissible, under the pleadings.
    APPEAL from the District Court of the First District, Buchanan, J.
    
      L-Janin and 5. L. Johnson, for the plaintiff. Michel, for the appellant.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Seidell, J.

The.plaintiff sues the defendant as maker of a promissory note, payable to the order of, and endorsed in blank by, one Howell. The petition contains the usual allegations, exhibiting the plaintiff as holder, in the ordinary course of business, before maturity.

The defendant’s answer exhibits no general denial, but a special plea to the effect that, holders of this note prior to plaintiff were well aware of a failure of the consideration for which the note was given, and of the existence of certain equities in favor of the maker against the payee. But the plea does not state that the plaintiff received the note with notice, or under suspicious circumstances.

At the trial the defendant offered evidence to show that a previous holder took the note, with knowledge of the failure of consideration. This evidence the court rejected. There was evidently no error in this rejection. If admitted it would not have affected the plaintiff, unless followed up by evidence of notice to the plaintiff of like matters, before he took the note. But such further evidence would not have been admissible under the pleadings. Judgment affirmed.  