
    Powers v. Talbott.
    
    In a suit by tbo assignee of a promissory note against the maker, the defendant is estopped to set up the invalidity of the note, as between himself and the payee, if the plaintiff purchased the note upon the promise of the defendant to pay it.
    
      Monday, May 24.
    APPEAL from the Delaware Circuit Court.
    
      
       The petition for a rehearing in this case was filed on the 26th of June, and overruled on the 12th of October.
      
    
    
      
       Mr. March cited Harvey v. Toner, 4 Eng. L. and Eq. R. 531; 13 Ohio R. 239; 16 id. 1; 3 id. (new series) 156; 5 Pick. 412; 10 Johns. 230; 1 Duer, 309.
    
   Per Curiam.

Suit by the assignee against the maker of a promissory note.

Answer setting up fraud and want of consideration.

Reply, by way of estoppel, that before the plaintiff purchased the note, but while negotiating for it, he inquired of the defendant, the maker, Powers, as to its character, and was informed that the note was valid and would be paid at maturity.

W. March, for the appellant .

S. Yandes and C. Hines, for the appellee.

Trial by jury, and judgment for plaintiff.

The jury found specially, in answer to interrogatories put to them by Powers, that the plaintiff purchased the note upon the promise of Powers, made during the negotiations for the purchase, that the note was valid, and that he would pay it. This being the case, the defendant was estopped to set up, against the present plaintiff, the invalidity of the note, as between him and the payee. Muchmore v. Bates, 1 Blackf. 248.—Sloan v. The Richmond, &c., Co., 6 id. 175.—Williams v. Rank, 1 Ind. R. 230.—Paul v. Baugher et al., 8 Ind. R. 501.

The consequence is, that the judgment is right upon the merits, and we shall not look through the confused record to see whether the Court committed the numerous errors assigned relating to other branches of the case or not.

The judgment is affirmed, with 5 per cent, damages and costs.  