
    N. K. Butler & Co., v. Elizabeth Carter, et al.
    
    Where the ground of appeal is that the verdict was against the evidence, tho Court will not grant a new trial, if the finding has been sufficiently supported by the evidence.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Richardson, Edgefield, Spring Term, 1847.
    This was an action of assumpsit, on four promissory notes, respectively for $1,000, $214.44, $105 and $130. Plea, non assumpsit, under which the defence announced was fraud and payment.
    The note for$1000 was signed in blank and delivered to the plaintiffs, or one of them, to raise money to pay ofFjudgments in the Sheriff’s office against the defendants. It was proved that Rudolph Carter had authorised the plaintiffs to fill up the note with the sum of $1000, and that Elizabeth Carter had signed tho note for the purpose of paying off’the Christie judgment, and supposed it would not be filled up for more than $G00 or $700. This judgment amounted to $876 77, on the 20th January, 1844, when plaintiff paid Christie this sum and took an assignment of the judgment, which is still open. The notes for $1000 and $214, had not been negotiated in bank; tho other two had been negotiated, and had been taken up by the plaintiffs, as endorsers. There was no proof directly attacking the consideration of any of the notes except the one for $1000; but a witness stated that he had heard conversations between the parties in which it was admitted that plaintiff frequently took notes from defendant, for the purpose of raising money to pay of defendant’s liabilities in the Sheriff’s office; but witness had not seen any of the notes, and none was mentioned except the $1000 note. There was also proof, that in 1843, the plaintiff and R. Carter had a settlement, when it appeared that plaintiffs were indebted to R. Carter fifty cts. on balance struck, yet that a few months afterwards, in Nov., 1843, R. Carter confessed judgment'to plaintiffs for $3705. It was also proved that on one occasion when one of the plaintiffs paid some money in the sheriff’s office for defendants, and at the same time advanced some money of his own for their use, that he desired the cases to be kept open. Besides the case of Christie, various other cases had been in whole or part paid by plaintiff in Sheriff’s office, and in Gibb’s case, an assignment was taken.
    The verdict was for defendants. The plaintiffs appealed; the ground which was considered will appear in the opinion of the Court.
    Yancey, for the motion.
    Carroll, contra.
    
   Richardson J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The only ground of appeal is, that the verdict is against the weigh1 of evidence: but a majority of the Court consider the finding sufficiently supported. The appeal is therefore dismissed.  