
    Dunn et al., Executors, Appellants, v. Tisch.
    
      Negotiable instruments■ — Promissory notes — Insufficient evidence —Nonsuit.
    
    In an action on an instrument reading “Deceived of (plaintiff’s decedent) 47 shares of Lehigh Bleaching and Dyeing stock, par value $100 per share, -which I .agree to return or pay for the sum of four thousand dollars on or before the 27th of April, 1914. Less the reduction of note which I hold,” where plaintiff offered the note in evidence and rested, the trial judge properly entered a compulsory nonsuit, as it was clear that there was no indebtedness of $4,000 owing from the defendant to the plaintiff, no evidence having been produced by which the court could ascertain what would be a just verdict against the defendant.
    Submitted May 29, 1918.
    July 17, 1918:
    Appeal, No. 88, Jan. T., 1918, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., June T., 1916, No. 127, refusing to take off nonsuit, in case of Joseph L. Dunn and Newton R. Turner, Executors of the Estate of Thomas A. Dunn, Deceased, v. Louis Tisch.
    Before Brown, C. J., Moschzisker, Frazer and Walling, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Strauss, J.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    The court entered a compulsory nonsuit, which it subsequently refused to take off. Plaintiffs appealed.
    
      Error assigned was in refusing to take off nonsuit.
    
      M. J. Mulhall, for appellants.
    
      John T. Lenahan and Chas. B. Lenahan} for appellee.
   Per Curiam,

The plaintiffs rested after offering in evidence the written instrument upon which they brought their action. It was in the following form: “Allentown, Pa., April 16, 1914. Received of Thomas A. Dunn forty-seven shares of Lehigh Bleaching and Dyeing stock, par value $100 per share, which I agree to return or pay for, the sum of four thousand dollars on or before the 27th of April, 1914. Less the reduction of note which I hold. [Signed] Louis Tisch.” With nothing more before the jury the learned trial judge properly said: “The motion for a nonsuit is sustained, because the contract produced by plaintiffs, upon which the claim is based, shows a possible indebtedness against the defendant, but based upon the four thousand, less a certain note held by the defendant. The plaintiff is dead, the defendant’s mouth is sealed. It is evident from the paper that there was no indebtedness of four thousand dollars owing from the defendant to the plaintiff under any circumstances, and as there is no evidence produced by which the court can ascertain what would be a just verdict against this defendant, the nonsuit is sustained.”

Judgment affirmed.  