
    First National Bank of Olyphant, Appellant, v. O’Malley Manufacturing Co.
    
      Practice, O. P. — Affidavit of defense — Negotiable instruments.
    
    In an action by a bank for the collection of a promissory note, an affidavit of defense is sufficient, which alleges payment of a larger Sum of money, than the amount due on the note, to the cashier of the bank, under an agreement that the said sum was to be applied by said cashier to payment of the note in suit, and then to other obligations of the defendant.
    Submitted March 6, 1918.
    April 21, 1919:
    Appeal, No. 44, March Term, 1918, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., May T., 1917, No. 30, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in the case of First National Bank of Olyphant v. O’Malley Manufacturing Co.
    Before' Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Edwards, P. J.
    Buie for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
    The court filed the following opinion discharging the rule:
    The second averment in the affidavit of defense states that in June, 1914, the defendant paid the cashier of the plaintiff bank the sum of four thousand ($4,000) dollars in payment of certain claims, the first of which being the indebtedness, represented by the note in this case. This averment is sufficient to prevent judgment.
    Now, December 20, 1917, rule for judgment is discharged.
    
      Error assigned was the order of the court.
    
      Harry Needle, for appellant.
    No appearance and no paper-book for appellee.
   Per Curiam,

The opinion of the learned judge of the Court of Common Pleas is a sufficient answer to the appellant’s argument on this appeal and for the reasons therein given the judgment is affirmed.  