
    The People’s National Bank of Hackensack, Respondent, v. Clarence B. Rice et al., Appellants. Clarence B. Rice et al., Appellants, v. Oliver Brothers Purchasing Company et al., Respondents.
    
      People’s Nat. Bank of Hackensack v. Rice, 175 App. Div. 892, affirmed.
    
      Rice v. Oliver Brothers Purchasing Co., 175 App. Div. 892, affirmed.
    (Argued March 12, 1919;
    decided April 8, 1919.)
    Appeal in the first above-entitled action from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered October 25, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. .Appeal in the second above-entitled action from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered October 25, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon the report of a referee. Action No. 1 was begun March 26, 1908, by the People’s National Bank of Hackensack, a banking corporation, against Rice and Hunter upon a certain promissory note for $2,500 made by them to the order of Oliver Brothers Purchasing Company and discounted by the plaintiff bank. This note was one of two notes, each in the sum of $2,500 due in six months and a year respectively, given March 9, 1907, by Rice and Hunter as the consideration for $15,000 par value of capital stock of the East Asian Mercantile Company. The six months’ note was paid when due. On November 9, 1911, action No. 2 was brought by Rice and Hunter against the Oliver Brothers Purchasing Company and Thomas E. Oliver, James H. Oliver and Frank J. Oliver individually, claiming damages for fraud in the sale of said stock. The defense pleaded by Rice and Hunter in action No. 1 and the cause of action set up in their complaint in action No. 2 are the same, namely, that on March 9, 1907, when the stock was delivered and the notes given therefor, Thomas E. Oliver and Frank J. Oliver made affirmative false and fraudulent statements.of facts with respect to said • company. The referee found that there was no fraud in the transaction.
    
      Elisha B. Powell, E. J. Page and Robert B. Knowles for appellants.
    
      Henry W. Unger and Herbert B. Shoemaker for respondents.
   Judgment in each casé affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, Pound and Andrews, JJ. Not sitting: McLaughlin, J.  