
    RIBNER v. KLEINBERG et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    April 8, 1910.)
    Bills and Notes (§ 103)—Liability of Makeb—Fbaud—Want of Consid-EBATION.
    A maker, sued on a demand note, who proves without dispute that he was induced to sign the note because it was represented to him that it was a receipt, and who also proves that the note was without consideration, ' establishes his nonliability.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. §§ 233-240; Dec. Dig. § 103.]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.
    Action by Louis Ribner against Barnett Kleinberg and others. From a judgment of the Municipal Court for plaintiff, defendant Barnett Kleinberg appeals.
    Reversed, and new trial ordered.
    Argued before SEABURY, LEHMAN, and GAVEGAN, JJ.
    Alfred E. Ommen, for appellant.
    Walter M. Fri'edland, for respondent.
    
      
      For othór cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes.
    
   SEABURY, J.

Action upon a demand note against the maker. The defendant proved that he was induced to sign the note because it was represented to him that it was a receipt. This evidence was not denied. The defendant also proved that the note was without consideration. It follows that the verdict of' the jury in favor of the plaintiff cannot be sustained.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.  