
    Griffith et al. v. Smith et al.
    
    No. 3415.
    June 7, 1923.
    Description, and counseFs names, as in case next before.
   Hill, J.'

In this ease a distress warrant was sworn out by the defendants against the plaintiffs, based on the rent contract involved in the case of Griffith v. Smith, this day decided. The trial judge directed a verdict on the pleadings, after proof was submitted as to the amount of rent due. The rulings m the above-stated case are controlling here; and it follows that the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plain.tiffs. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.  