
    CORAL GABLES, INC., v. LAU RHEA WARD.
    (Filed 10 April, 1935.)
    Appeal by plaintiff from Oglesby, J., at June Term, 1934, of Buree.
    Civil action, ex contractu, tried upon the following issues:
    “1. Did Coral Gables Corporation and the defendant Lau Rhea Ward, on 16 September, 1925, enter into a written contract whereby the said Coral Gables Corporation agreed to convey to the defendant Lau Rhea Ward certain land in Coral Gables, Florida, by good and sufficient warranty deed, free of all encumbrances other than such as may have been placed by the defendant Lau Rhea Ward, and whereby the defendant Lau Rhea Ward executed and delivered to the said Coral Gables Corporation, as the purchase price of said lands, her promissory note under seal in words and figures set forth in the complaint? Answer : 'Yes.’
    “2. Was the said note, together with said land contract, assigned to the Coral Gables, Inc., for value prior to the institution of this action? Answer: ‘Yes/
    “3. Was the defendant Lau Rhea Ward induced to enter into said contract for the purchase of said land and to execute and deliver said note to Coral Gables Corporation by the fraud of said Coral Gables Corporation and its agents, as alleged in the answer ? Answer: ‘Yes.’
    “4. If so, is the right of the defendant Lau Rhea Ward to assert such fraud as a defense to said note and land contract barred by the statute of limitations prescribed by sec. 441 of tbe Consolidated Statutes, as alleged in tbe plaintiff’s reply? Answer: No.’
    “5. Is tbe plaintiff Coral Gables, Inc., ready, able, and willing to convey to tbe defendant Lau Ebea Ward tbe land for wbicb said note was given by good and sufficient deed, free of all encumbrances other tban sucb as may bave been placed thereon by tbe defendant Lau Ebea Ward? Answer: No.’”
    Judgment on tbe verdict, from wbicb tbe plaintiff appeals, assigning-errors.
    
      Isaac T, Ávcry and J. Bennett Ridctle, Jr., for plaintiff.
    
    
      0. Lee Horton, S. J. Hrvin, and S. J. Ervin, Jr., for defendant.
    
   Per OtjeiaM.

On tbe bearing tbe controversy narrowed itself principally to issues of fact, wbicb tbe jury has determined in favor of tbe defendant. Tbe numerous exceptions noted during tbe trial bave been examined with care without discovering any reversible error or reason to disturb tbe result. Hence, tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.  