
    9843
    EASLEY LOAN & TRUST CO. v. JEANES.
    1. Motion to Amend Answer — Discretion oe Presiding Judge.— After careful consideration of the testimony, this Court is satisfied that the discretion of the presiding Judge was not erroneously exercised.
    2. Direction oe Verdict eor Plaintiff. — The record fails to disclose any testimony showing failure of consideration in the notes sued upon.
    Before Moore, J., Pickens, Fall term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Action by Easley Loan and Trust Company against W. T. Jeanes. From judgment on directed verdict, defendant appeals.
    
      Mr. Jas. H. Price, for appellant,
    cites: As to refusal of motion to amend answer: Code of Procedure, sec. 224; 86 S. C. 98; Code of Procedure, sec. *194. As to direction of verdict: 74 S. C. 575; 62 S. C. 42; 106 S. C. 32.
    
      Messrs. McSwain & DuBose, for respondent,
    file no argument.
    January 7, 1918.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chiee Justice Gary.

This is an action on two promissory notes. The defendant pleaded failure of consideration. The defendant made a motion to amend its answer, so as to allege fraud, but the motion was refused. At the close of the testimony the plaintiff made a motion for the direction of a verdict, which was granted. The defendant appealed dn two exceptions.

The first assigns error on the part of his Honor, the presiding Judge, in refusing the motion to amend the answer, by alleging fraud. After careful consideration of the testimony, this Court is satisfied that the discretion of the Circuit Judge was not erroneously exercised.

The second exception assigns error in directing the jury to find a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, on the ground that there was' testimony showing failure of consideration. The record fails to disclose any such testimony.  